Hi Lars, thanks for this. I just realized that I apparently didn't create an PR but directly merged the commit into master. However, I guess that not a problem for these obvious nits. In any case they are addressed!
Mirja On 19.04.22, 19:24, "Lars Eggert via Datatracker" <[email protected]> wrote: Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-quic-applicability-16: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-applicability/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The datatracker state does not indicate whether the consensus boilerplate should be included in this document. Thanks to Maria Ines Robles for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/869_aZXxcQCMeZGDSfN-E1JyjrU). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-f8ce152d1f78d2c2&q=1&e=4a946455-b229-4997-938c-5640c97a4c28&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flarseggert%2Fietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Section 14, paragraph 1, nit: - QUIC version 1 does not specify a version negotation mechanism in the + QUIC version 1 does not specify a version negotiation mechanism in the + + Document references draft-ietf-quic-datagram, but that has been published as RFC9221. Document references draft-ietf-quic-manageability-15, but -16 is the latest available revision. Reference [RFC5077] to RFC5077, which was obsoleted by RFC8446 (this may be on purpose). Paragraph 1938, nit: > ols needs to be avoided. In general, a application that implements fallback > ^ Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. "an article", "an hour". Paragraph 2371, nit: > lishment is qualitatively different than one that does not from the point of > ^^^^ Did you mean "different from"? "Different than" is often considered colloquial style. Paragraph 5804, nit: > opened and closed they are consumed and the cumulative total is incremented > ^^^^ Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short). Paragraph 5822, nit: > increased using the MAX_STREAMS frame but there is no mechanism to reduce lim > ^^^^ Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short). Paragraph 6727, nit: > e an error code space that is independent from QUIC or other applications (s > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean "independent of"? Paragraph 10802, nit: > nd using QUIC. Further, migration to an new address exposes a linkage between > ^^ Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. "a sentence", "a university".
