Re: [C430] RFC 9000 - Re: [IANA #1196209] Protocol Action: 'QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-quic-transport-34.txt)

Hi, Martin and Jana.

We have made the three updates per your notes below.

We will now move this document forward for publication.

Many thanks for the quick turnaround!

RFC Editor/lb

> On May 25, 2021, at 6:47 PM, Martin Thomson via C430 <c430@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> OK, Jana and I have had a chat and concluded:
> 
> 1.
> The three ECN counts; see ...
> 
> 2.
> ECN counts are only present when ...
> 
> 3.
> The ECN count fields are:
> 
> (We dropped the word "three" here as it is redundant.)
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 26, 2021, at 11:34, Jana Iyengar via C430 wrote:
>> Thanks for the catch, Lynne!
>> 
>> I agree with Martin, except for the last two corrections. There are 3 
>> fields (ECT0 Count, ECT1 Count, ECN-CE Count), grouped together in the 
>> text as the ECN counts. I don't think we should say ECN Counts field, 
>> since that isn't actually a field... we can say "ECN counts" or "ECN 
>> counts fields", but not "ECN Counts field".
>> 
>>>>> 2.  In Section 19.3.2:  ... ECN Counts are only present ...
>>>> 
>>>> Instead:
>>>> The ECN Counts field is only present ...
>> 
>> I propose changing this to "ECN counts are"
>> 
>>>>> 3.  Just after Figure 27:  The three ECN Counts are: ...
>>>> 
>>>> Instead:
>>>> The three fields in ECN Counts are: ...
>> 
>> I would propose here "The three ECN counts fields are: ..."
>> I'm fine with "The three ECN counts are: ..." as well, but I think 
>> "fields" is appropriate here.
>> 
>> Martin -- WDYT?
>> 
>> - jana
>> -- 
>> C430 mailing list
>> C430@rfc-editor.org <mailto:C430%40rfc-editor.org>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>> 
> -- 
> C430 mailing list
> C430@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
> 

> From: Lynne Bartholomew via C430 <c430@rfc-editor.org>
> Subject: Re: [C430] RFC 9000 - Re: [IANA #1196209] Protocol Action: 'QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-quic-transport-34.txt)
> Date: May 25, 2021 at 5:28:57 PM PDT
> To: Martin Thomson via C430 <c430@rfc-editor.org>
> 
> Hi, Martin.  Thanks for the quick reply!  And no apology needed -- the issue was on our end.
> 
> We'll wait to hear from Jana before making any updates and moving forward.
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On May 25, 2021, at 5:07 PM, Martin Thomson via C430 <c430@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Lynne,
>> 
>> Sorry for missing that.
>> 
>> On Wed, May 26, 2021, at 09:48, Lynne Bartholomew via C430 wrote:
>>> Hi, Martin and Jana.
>>> 
>>> We are preparing this document for publication.
>>> 
>>> Apologies, but one of our questions from earlier in the process fell 
>>> through the cracks:
>>> 
>>> ECN count / ECN Count (in text, e.g., "3 ECN counts", "three ECN
>>>  Counts")
>>> 
>>> This document has 22 instances of "ECN count", appearing between 
>>> Section 7 and Appendix A.4.  There are three instances of "ECN Count" 
>>> in text that we suggest changing to "ECN count":
>> 
>> I agree that this is the right answer (consistent with others we've made).
>> 
>>> 1.  At the end of Section 19.3:  ... The three ECN Counts; ...
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> 2.  In Section 19.3.2:  ... ECN Counts are only present ...
>> 
>> Instead:
>> The ECN Counts field is only present ...
>> 
>>> 3.  Just after Figure 27:  The three ECN Counts are: ...
>> 
>> Instead:
>> The three fields in ECN Counts are: ...
>> 
>> I should get Jana to check my work though.
>> -- 
>> C430 mailing list
>> C430@rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>> 
> 
> -- 
> C430 mailing list
> C430@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
> 