Hi, Aaron, On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:44 PM Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Glad to see rapid convergence on these comments. My turn for a nit: > > On 21 Aug 2018, at 2:48, Michael Welzl wrote: > > I'm not sure if you saw my suggestion about qualifying the reference to > [I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security] as "Section 5 of > [I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security]", but assuming that we're good on that > one ... > > > I saw it and agree. I thought that it's not necessary for the specific > sentence that you ended up proposing, but now I agree that even in this > sentence it's better. I'll update it to include "Section 5 of" just ahead > of this reference. > > The likelihood of an ID having it's sections renumbered is high enough > that I don't think we should embed the section number in an RFC. I'd > suggest using the section name as well in case one or both changes the > reader is likely to make the connection: "Section 5 on Security Features > and Transport Dependencies of ..." > I totally agree on this one. I only suggested adding the section number because I couldn't find any mention of the minimum set in the abstract or Introduction for [I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security], so a reader would have to scroll through the Table of Contents to notice it. I had a nagging feeling when I made the suggestion - thanks for fixing it. If I might make one other observation, there are a few places visible in https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-taps-minset-05.txt for Section A (I think A.1) where there seems to be a missing newline between "Implementation over TCP:" and "Implementation over UDP:" - I saw more than one occurrence, but I think the first one to check is under "Specify checksum coverage used by the sender" for "Protocols: UDP-Lite". I had thought to make that observation as a response to the Last Call announcement, but Aaron sent his suggested change before I did that. I'll let the shepherds/chairs decide when to submit a revision that fixes these nits, but if you folks wanted to do that at the beginning of Last Call, I'd be fine with that, so review teams won't all make that suggestion. :-) Spencer > --aaron >
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
