Some of my comments are also about separating "what" and "why", so focusing on that sounds like a good first step.
Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: David Mazieres [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 3:58 PM > To: Black, David; [email protected] > Cc: Black, David > Subject: Re: [tcpinc] TCP-ENO: David Black's review > > "Black, David" <[email protected]> writes: > > > I'm likely to be the shepherd for this draft (but if anyone else is > > interested, please email the WG chairs - [email protected]). > > Thanks for the feedback. We're about to release a new draft of TCP-ENO. > I'll try to incorporate some of your feedback, but want to get the new > draft out as soon as possible, so might end up releasing two drafts in > rapid succession. Anyone else considering reviewing TCP-ENO who hasn't > started reading yet might want to wait a day or two... > > High-level, in addition to addressing specific feedback we got before, > we are trying to separate the "what" from the "why," so that someone who > just wants to implement TCP-ENO doesn't have to wade through a bunch of > rationale to see what to do. This is something Jana has been pushing > for a while, and I think it will make for a better document, but the > changes are pretty extensive, which is what is delaying the next draft. > So basically I probably want to get through that restructuring before I > turn to your feedback, but should be able to get to both in the next > week. > > Sorry for the bad timing. > > David _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
