Super. Thanks Tommy. BR Zahed ________________________________ From: Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 11:56:24 PM To: Lucas Pardue <[email protected]>; Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email protected]> Cc: Tommy Pauly <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; IETF QUIC WG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-quic-datagram-06
I’ve switched this to the standard "Discussion Venues” section that gets automatically added. (See editor’s copy, https://quicwg.org/datagram/draft-ietf-quic-datagram.html<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-0672ce34b2c3ae78&q=1&e=0-4172d1abbc906e09a488aa032af37594&u=https%3A%2F%2Fquicwg.org%2Fdatagram%2Fdraft-ietf-quic-datagram.html>). Thanks, Tommy On Dec 6, 2021, at 11:04 AM, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks for the review Zahed On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:17 PM Tommy Pauly <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Zahed, Thanks for the review! On Dec 6, 2021, at 5:53 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, Thanks for well written and short document. This document have following text in the abstract and introduction – “Discussion of this work is encouraged to happen on the QUIC IETF mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> or on the GitHub repository which contains the draft: https://github.com/quicwg/datagram<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-d8c57b11f2359f3e&q=1&e=0-4172d1abbc906e09a488aa032af37594&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fquicwg%2Fdatagram>.” I don’t think we need to have them at this stage of this document. Please remove them. Looking at RFC9000, this was around even in the last version prior to RFC publication (draft-ietf-quic-transport-34). I don’t think it’s beneficial to remove this now. +1, As a compromise, perhaps add an RFC editor note to remove the note before publication? Cheers Lucas
