Dear all,
Complementing yesterday’s email in which I sent answers to the questions, here
is a short list of changes - just a few small issues that I found when reading
the diff.
As always, many, many thanks to the RFC Editor staff for their great work with
this!
Below, “MW:” indicates a explanation / comment line from me.
=======
MW: I think this “an” should become “a” due to acronym expansion.
Section 2:
OLD:
Once the Connection is established, the Transport Services
Implementation maps actions and events to the details of the chosen
Protocol Stack. For example, the same Connection object may
ultimately represent a single transport protocol instance (e.g., a
TCP connection, a TLS session over TCP, a UDP flow with fully
specified Local and Remote Endpoint Identifiers, a DTLS session, an
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) stream, a QUIC stream, or
an HTTP/2 stream). The Connection Properties held by a Connection or
Listener are independent of other Connections that are not part of
the same Connection Group.
NEW:
Once the Connection is established, the Transport Services
Implementation maps actions and events to the details of the chosen
Protocol Stack. For example, the same Connection object may
ultimately represent a single transport protocol instance (e.g., a
TCP connection, a TLS session over TCP, a UDP flow with fully
specified Local and Remote Endpoint Identifiers, a DTLS session, a
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) stream, a QUIC stream, or
an HTTP/2 stream). The Connection Properties held by a Connection or
Listener are independent of other Connections that are not part of
the same Connection Group.
MW: I *believe* “have” should be “has” after “each of which”, but I’m unsure
(I’m not a native speaker). As Spencer Dawkins would say: “please do the right
thing” :-)
Section 3.1:
OLD:
The Transport Services system should have a list of supported
protocols available, each of which have transport features reflecting
the capabilities of the protocol. Once an application specifies its
Transport Properties, the Transport Services system matches the
required and prohibited properties against the transport features of
the available protocols (see Section 6.2 of [RFC9622] for the
definition of property preferences).
NEW:
The Transport Services system should have a list of supported
protocols available, each of which has transport features reflecting
the capabilities of the protocol. Once an application specifies its
Transport Properties, the Transport Services system matches the
required and prohibited properties against the transport features of
the available protocols (see Section 6.2 of [RFC9622] for the
definition of property preferences).
MW: it seems a wrong line break happened here in the middle of the word
“implementation”.
Section 4.1.3:
OLD:
"Capacity Profile" (property name connCapacityProfile): An implement
ation can use the capacity profile to prefer paths that match an
application's expected traffic profile. This match will use
cached performance estimates; see Section 9.2. Some examples of
path preferences based on capacity profiles include:
NEW:
"Capacity Profile" (property name connCapacityProfile): An
implementation can use the capacity profile to prefer paths that match
an application's expected traffic profile. This match will use
cached performance estimates; see Section 9.2. Some examples of
path preferences based on capacity profiles include:
MW: Section 5.1.1: I see that you capitalized the first word after each list
item here (e.g., “when” became “When” after “msgOrdered:”). However, this seems
inconsistent: both after “msgLifetime:” and “msgPriority:”, “this” should
probably become “This” for consistency.
OLD:
msgLifetime: this should be implemented by removing the Message from
the queue of pending Messages after the Lifetime has expired. A
NEW:
msgLifetime: This should be implemented by removing the Message from
the queue of pending Messages after the Lifetime has expired. A
and:
OLD:
msgPriority: this represents the ability to prioritize a Message
over other Messages. This can be implemented by the Transport
NEW:
msgPriority: This represents the ability to prioritize a Message
over other Messages. This can be implemented by the Transport
Cheers,
Michael
> On 25 Nov 2024, at 17:08, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> Updated 2024/11/25
>
> RFC Author(s):
> --------------
>
> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>
> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>
> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
> your approval.
>
> Planning your review
> ---------------------
>
> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>
> * RFC Editor questions
>
> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
> follows:
>
> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>
> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>
> * Changes submitted by coauthors
>
> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>
> * Content
>
> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
> - contact information
> - references
>
> * Copyright notices and legends
>
> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
>
> * Semantic markup
>
> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>
> * Formatted output
>
> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>
>
> Submitting changes
> ------------------
>
> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
> include:
>
> * your coauthors
>
> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)
>
> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>
> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list
> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
> list:
>
> * More info:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>
> * The archive itself:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>
> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and
> its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>
> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>
> An update to the provided XML file
> — OR —
> An explicit list of changes in this format
>
> Section # (or indicate Global)
>
> OLD:
> old text
>
> NEW:
> new text
>
> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>
> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>
>
> Approving for publication
> --------------------------
>
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>
>
> Files
> -----
>
> The files are available here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.xml
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.txt
>
> Diff file of the text:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-xmldiff1.html
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9623
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Editor
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9623 (draft-ietf-taps-impl-18)
>
> Title : Implementing Interfaces to Transport Services
> Author(s) : A. Brunstrom, Ed., T. Pauly, Ed., R. Enghardt, P. Tiesel,
> M. Welzl
> WG Chair(s) : Reese Enghardt, Aaron Falk
>
> Area Director(s) : Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Francesca Palombini
>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
