On 29/11/2024 13:17, Colin Perkins wrote:
Hi Megan,
Happy with the changes so far.
Regarding the || query: I actually think the use of helps
readability, provided we can be sure it’s consistent. It’s not
critical, but it helps.
Colin
+1 It helps, the render I see looks good.
Gorry
On
On 02/12/2024 18:26, Megan Ferguson wrote:
Hi Michael and Gorry,
We have compiled our changes in response to both Michael’s email below and Gorry’s
message about the <> tagging (see the 9621 email thread) in our postings below.
Just a few notes:
1) Please review our updates to remove <> as su
On 06/12/2024 12:37, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
I’d prefer to update the running title to “Transport Services Architecture” to
reflect the other documents.
We debated this in some detail earlier and arrived at:
Architecture and Requirements for Transport Services
I'm just asking why we nee
On 06/12/2024 12:47, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
Not the document title, the short / footer title (which currently reads TAPS
Architecture).
Aha.
Yes, I strongly agree with THAT proposal to change "
On 6 Dec 2024, at 13:43, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
On 06/12/2024 12:37, Brian Trammell (IETF)
Dear RFC-Ed,
Please note that the following issues relating to Arch were not dealt
with in the cluster answer sent to the RFC Editor, but specifically
relate to improving consistency with draft-ietf-taps-arch:
1. Could you please add this definition to the ARCH draft to be
consistent with ot
On 27/12/2024 15:13, Anna Brunström wrote:
Hi again,
Below are a few details for -arch. With the changes below, I approve the
document.
BR,
Anna
OLD:
Instead, it provides the Protocol Stack with additional information to allow it
to make better use of modern Transport Services, while simplif
Dear RFC-Ed/Megan,
Sorry - to get back with more Cluser-wide inspired changes to
draft-ietf-taps-arch. The following issues have merged as requests:
1. Could you please add the following definition to the ARCH draft to be
consistent with other I-Ds in this cluster which use this list for
def
Megan/RFC-Ed,
As an author, I'd now like to add my APPROVAL for RFC9621.
I think this is now ready.
Best wishes,
Gorry
On 09/12/2024 19:29, Megan Ferguson wrote:
Yes! That was my thought, but I could not locate it!
I have updated the AUTH48 status page of 9622 to reflect this
(https://www.
Please see below:
On 06/12/2024 18:48, Megan Ferguson wrote:
Hi Colin,
Thanks for pointing this out. We have folded this change into our current
version of the files (see below).
Perhaps I am missing it, but I *think* we haven’t seen a response to this
question from a previous mail:
2) Re
On 21/03/2025 02:02, Rebecca VanRheenen wrote:
Hi Tom and Gorry*,
*Gorry - As AD, please review and approve the following changes. These are best
viewed in this diff
file:https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-auth48diff.html.
1) Added paragraph in Section 5; it’s the fourth paragraph (au
Thanks for doing this - It is good to get this precise as a BCP, and we
have replies to your questions (see below), and also a few extra requests.
Martin and I have coordinated, but he'll chime-in if there any
additional requests.
Best wishes,
Gorry
---
Authors and *AD,
While reviewing thi
I was performing a final check and noted one mistake by me that needs to
be corrected (so sorry).
ORIGINAL (as sent to RFC-Ed):
A congestion control algorithm shouldtry to avoid causing
excessively high rates of packet loss.
CURRENT (as suggested by me):
A congestion control algorithm ought
On 05/03/2025 18:56, Megan Ferguson wrote:
Hi Gorry,
Thanks for sending this along. We have added this change to our versions of
the files
(see below).
Please review our update (as your description of the update was to change one
word but
the “New” text actually changed more than one word) a
13 matches
Mail list logo
