Hi, Thanks; I just posted an update of draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage which, I believe, addresses all the last comments. From the revision info in the draft:
*** -09: for consistency with the draft-ietf-taps-minset-00, adjusted the following transport features in "pass 3": "Choice between unordered (potentially faster) or ordered delivery of messages" divided into two transport features (one for unordered, one for ordered); the word "reliably" was added to the transport features "Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly multiple times) before connection establishment" and "Hand over a message to reliably transfer during connection establishment". Fixed RFC2119-style language into explicit citations (comment by Eric Rescorla and others). Addressed editorial comments by Mirja Kuehlewind, Ben Campbell, Benoit Claise and the Gen-ART reviewer Roni Even, except for moving terminology section after the intro because the terminology is already used in the intro text. *** Cheers, Michael > On Oct 24, 2017, at 8:34 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just to make a long-delayed decision ... > > Based on responses to my question to TAPS about whether > draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp should be folded into > draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage, I am seeing no support in the working group > for that, and reasons why the draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp draft is > useful without reference to the draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage. > > For these reasons, I ask that the authors submit an updated > draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage draft, taking into account the ballot > comments from Eric, Mirja, Ben, and Benoit. > > I see that the draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp draft has already been > updated to reflect comments received during balloting. I'll send the Approved > e-mails for both drafts as a set. > > Thanks to everyone who provided input. > > Spencer, as AD > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com <mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Dear TAPS working group, > > Multiple ADs have asked why these two drafts aren't a single draft, in their > ballots. Those are non-blocking comments, but I'd like to explore that, > before making a decision about what should happen, and when. > > It occurs to me that these ADs are reading both drafts pretty much > back-to-back in preparation for balloting during IESG Evaluation. > > If people reading the two drafts back-to-back find the split to be a > distraction, I'd like to understand the views of the working group as to how > often you expect people to read both drafts, in order to do TAPS. > > I could imagine that people working on complete TAPS APIs might need to read > both drafts. > > What about other folks you expect to read these documents? Do you expect that > some communities only need to read one of them? > > Thanks in advance for any thoughts you can share. > > Spencer, as responsible AD for TAPS > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > Taps@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
