Hi Zahed, Thanks again for your comments and review! We’ve posted an -07 that resolves the issues as discussed in GitHub.
Best, Tommy > On Dec 6, 2021, at 8:56 PM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Super. Thanks Tommy. > > BR > Zahed > From: Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 11:56:24 PM > To: Lucas Pardue <[email protected]>; Zaheduzzaman Sarker > <[email protected]> > Cc: Tommy Pauly <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <[email protected]>; IETF QUIC WG <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-quic-datagram-06 > > I’ve switched this to the standard "Discussion Venues” section that gets > automatically added. (See editor’s copy, > https://quicwg.org/datagram/draft-ietf-quic-datagram.html > <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-0672ce34b2c3ae78&q=1&e=0-4172d1abbc906e09a488aa032af37594&u=https%3A%2F%2Fquicwg.org%2Fdatagram%2Fdraft-ietf-quic-datagram.html>). > > Thanks, > Tommy > >> On Dec 6, 2021, at 11:04 AM, Lucas Pardue <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the review Zahed >> >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:17 PM Tommy Pauly >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> Hi Zahed, >> >> Thanks for the review! >> >>> On Dec 6, 2021, at 5:53 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-d8c57b11f2359f3e&q=1&e=0-4172d1abbc906e09a488aa032af37594&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fquicwg%2Fdatagram>.” >>> >>> 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. >> >> +1, As a compromise, perhaps add an RFC editor note to remove the note >> before publication? >> >> Cheers >> Lucas >
