Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-quic-datagram-08: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-datagram/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 5.2. , paragraph 5, comment: > If a sender detects that a packet containing a specific DATAGRAM > frame might have been lost, the implementation MAY notify the > application that it believes the datagram was lost. > > Similarly, if a packet containing a DATAGRAM frame is acknowledged, > the implementation MAY notify the sender application that the > datagram was successfully transmitted and received. Due to Being able to emit these notifications seem to depend on structuring the API between the implementation and the application so that not only opaque datagram blobs are exchanged, but that they are also associated with some sort of identifier? Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7_tXP9y1m0RYcb-8k6P8IbyTMGc). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. "Table of Contents", paragraph 2, nit: > . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do not mix variants of the same word ("acknowledgment" and "acknowledgement") within a single text. "Table of Contents", paragraph 2, nit: > s, and each frame type defines whether or not the data it contains will be r > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Consider shortening this phrase to just "whether". It is correct though if you mean "regardless of whether".
