> On Aug 24, 2017, at 10:24 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just to make these documents a bit more digestible by reviewers, ADs, and > readers, who will almost certainly be reading them as a set ... > > I'm OK with the separation of the Pass 1 analysis of UDP(-lite) into a > separate draft, but I wish the relationship was a little clearer. It seems > like > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-06#section-3.4 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-06#section-3.4> > has more text describing UDP(-lite) than it needs, if it's just going to say > "The set of Pass 1 primitives for UDP and UDP-Lite is documented in [FJ16].". > > If this makes sense to the working group, that description of UDP could be > integrated into > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-04#section-3 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-04#section-3>, > which only has a one-sentence description of UDP itself before beginning its > analysis.
I agreed with the authors of the other document that this is the right way forward. This text in the -usage draft consisted of 3 paragraphs, followed by the sentence that you quote above (“The set of …”). I removed these preceding three paragraphs now. > Is there any chance that each document could provide a pointer to the other > document, in the Abstract and Introduction sections, and be clearer about the > relationship there? While there was a pointer to the other document in the intro of the -usage draft already, I agree it wasn’t very clear, sorry! I now added, to both the intro and the abstract: "For UDP and UDP-Lite, the first step of the protocol analysis -- a discussion of relevant RFC text -- is documented in [FJ16].” Thanks a lot for your review! Cheers, Michael
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
