I think the abstract could better describe the actual content of the document, e.g., with a sentence like “… surveys, classifies and compares the protocol mechanisms …”. It could also list the protocols that are in scope of the document, or it could borrow other text from Section 1. It is not clear to me what a reader could learn from the statement “… to inform the work of the IETF TAPS Working Group”, in particular in a couple of years from now when the WG may not exist any more.
In Section 4.1, it may be better to refer to RFC 7414 instead of RFC 4614. Also, I think it would be appropriate to better emphasize that the section just gives an overview of TCP and is not intended to be a comprehensive description. Michael From: Taps [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aaron Falk Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 3:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Taps] TAPS WGLC: draft-ietf-taps-transports-08 - ends Dec 31 This email announces a TAPS Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on: Services provided by IETF transport protocols and congestion control mechanisms draft-ietf-taps-transports-08.txt<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports/> Due to the timing (many people take time off during the December holidays), this WGLC will run for slightly longer than usual - it will be for just over 3 weeks, ending at midnight US Eastern (daylight) Time on Thursday, December 31st. Comments should be sent to the [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> list, although purely editorial comments may be sent directly to the authors ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>). We're looking for at least a couple more reviews during WGLC - please email the chair ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) if you're interested and willing to review this draft (otherwise, we'll have to go "beat the bushes" for reviewers). Thanks, --aaron
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
