Hi Philipp,
Thanks a lot for your comments! Definitely not rat-holing, you ask some quite
interesting questions - it’s great to get some discussion on this!
My answers are in line:
> On Jun 26, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Philipp S. Tiesel wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
> Hi Stein,
>
> I also read through th
Hi,
and thanks a lot for your comments!
Answers in line:
> On Jun 26, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Theresa Enghardt
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> when reading the minset draft, I stumbled over a couple of points. Some of
> them may be nits and/or obvious to everyone except me, but I thought I'd
> offer them
WGLC for these drafts has concluded. While there were only a few
comments on the final drafts, they were all constructive and positive.
A significant amount of work and review has gone into the drafts
creation by all the folks engaged in the working group so I’m not
surprised at the minimal r
Hi Michael,
Hi Stein,
I also read through the draft (now more than once) and have some questions and
comments.
I hope not to open old rat-holes with this…
Sec 1 (Intro)
The number of transport features of current IETF transports is large,
and exposing all of them has a number of disadva
Hi,
when reading the minset draft, I stumbled over a couple of points. Some
of them may be nits and/or obvious to everyone except me, but I thought
I'd offer them as feedback.
Section 2 (Terminology): Would it make sense to define several more
terms here, such as Flow, Flow group, Message and Fra
