Dear all, I have read the draft, including the appendix, and I think it is in good shape and can be published.
However, I stumbled across the following clarification issue: In Section 3, it says: "elements of the system that may prohibit implementation over UDP are marked with "!UDP". To implement a transport system that can also work over UDP, these marked transport features should be excluded." Does this really mean that a transport system should not implement, e.g., 0-RTT, or otherwise it will not work over UDP? Maybe I'm just confused what "work over UDP" means at this point - I would assume it means that UDP is one of the possible choices of transport protocols. But perhaps it means that UDP is the protocol that the transport system can always fall back to, which the draft should make more clear. In fact, is this the same as "implementation over either TCP or UDP is possible" as used in Appendix A.2 paragraph 2 and A.3? Nits: "a TAPS transport system" - sounds redundant to me? Maybe "transport system implementing TAPS"? (Introduction 2. paragraph; Conclusion) "if an application would use them" --> "if an application used them" (Introduction, 3. paragraph) "[…] a sender-side TAPS system implementing it can talk to […]" - What does the "it" refer to here? The TAPS system? If so, can we drop the "implementing it"? "Here, the focus is on connections that the transport system offers, as opposed to connections of transport protocols that the transport system uses." - Maybe the distinction would be even more clear if we specified "on connections that the transport system offers as an abstraction to the application, as opposed to […]"? Best, Theresa _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
