Hi, Michael, On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 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, 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 > Oh, thank you! The fast path to IESG approval is to confuse the ADs as little as possible :-) Spencer
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
