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)

Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 26 May 2021 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: c430@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: c430@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0645F407FF for <c430@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 26 May 2021 12:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=0.01, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=2, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJECT_IN_WHITELIST=-100, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tU2-7X8iLJms for <c430@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 26 May 2021 12:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27206F407D5 for <c430@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 26 May 2021 12:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id k14so4356223eji.2 for <c430@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 26 May 2021 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XLMZvvvDMsHPRUvWZpqPKEMymt4dBaflz4WKRoiX5fI=; b=GYVFefZyMyMtToyDpsE9dxkNjQt50sJ0lpLqp1dT920k1L2ceQRWlX2DQ79u6Bfvz1 ORDH9gHe/rIpLFO0moeeXSjvo2T7jF2tSFIgWNluKPATU51kt2sqbVoHlddh+z7QNKTJ 324yvZYn3Rq2w+yo6z9BbrspZCQWbJN3diF8Q/Xlm97p5oSlcf378aTcWp2FBQqdZ7dQ 8aEXsZw4hEoP3LbFNQcxEG0Cvov38B1IXIsb22pw7HlBc6zbSgzKdeEHw0lm/CYgKppq 1cxTnGLqv/Y/gnlmfrrAcLhj9pPQFAWNYut79XeVkg9ZNVfroHReB4FdHp93Dcc9F4V6 ZfFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XLMZvvvDMsHPRUvWZpqPKEMymt4dBaflz4WKRoiX5fI=; b=PlvRl+IApc9tH6uXHaVmdFImAMMPiOBiRkSwTi2yEi3EHowZaXbjy4Oy3Z8dnZ9yOi SLaKCY2LNRz1Bxs1RfYgXwVgpvnwaM3ow3CNl/Uj38g0uyswAG9xL3OSbZygObPIrYTn jl1enKQ2aRLCY1ONPFl2OKmPfoc6suAdwMu8W1rPwmgeUwdtj6lM7yAYmVzAAEGa7lqE +U2ZEXbEP8tua25MzfOTF85xqUULL9t5mihhu88hBTumdxs8zvkglpqsrXK/6D4s6SJX TW7aSeUSVeSRiGDSYMbRgLooUL8Vs0j0uxXjNmistnzLkNAq3jeQwl/FuvmH31bUJzUU ei1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532xaUxUbBUXLlXOLjGm8qPV1CepiEZkQvOCIGV74ZUtD7gZvEij 5a7z8UsTzD9XGi1BTYVjpU+Y9AnHFNlnCxFszkI6qg/d
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzLFKf5TpsLKXquOCs8GORr/mZIU6vTm9oT8qQe4hyjCrCMf1D7ae5TklPiMN6aXXdXdDwUUw0++KiU7EpQUHE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:fc0c:: with SMTP id ov12mr35116998ejb.301.1622058607906; Wed, 26 May 2021 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <RT-Ticket-1196209@icann.org> <RT-Ticket-1188362@icann.org> <161237263486.16375.16046346962390939039@ietfa.amsl.com> <rt-4.4.3-2459-1613104363-271.1188362-37-0@icann.org> <7357872F-30B2-47F5-BCF4-958913894591@amsl.com> <rt-4.4.3-12070-1619736994-745.1196209-37-0@icann.org> <rt-4.4.3-27769-1621353382-424.1196209-37-0@icann.org> <6E148B19-298A-4476-9A6F-8EE93B8F71DA@amsl.com> <6151fe4e-16ec-4585-b238-5bb3fcc5777a@www.fastmail.com> <3F942BA8-F4DB-4272-91BF-6013145818FE@amsl.com> <ef768958-63b8-4ea8-a61f-e579c461661a@www.fastmail.com> <7291f943-51de-456c-b8c6-a453c494725b@www.fastmail.com> <CAEE489E-9C98-4B60-AA45-30FB5DCE0F0B@amsl.com> <9074BE20-FD2A-4C36-99A6-F557F3DFABC6@amsl.com> <4cfba816-3cf8-4619-bf7c-ec8f555910b9@www.fastmail.com> <12AF4BBD-E681-4752-8AB8-53F65D349979@amsl.com> <CACpbDccjpjvdYSjVeVvWrCzP0EftUAy=QhTasA0Em9O30fKXBg@mail.gmail.com> <0C2956E1-E146-4655-8340-449CCAA45D0D@amsl.com> <70F34AC9-C14B-4A4E-9F11-22CC46CC4E32@amsl.com> <53beb18c-e6bb-4292-9dd7-2e1caa7901e0@www.fastmail.com> <AAE92C4B-E4DB-4B77-B6D9-94EEDA89ECBF@amsl.com> <CACpbDccVDCZAcwm=sOV4WkWkAqGWe-LwoFrS-mUPZkLKDddJnw@mail.gmail.com> <a6d08c9c-10ae-47dd-b919-008f2321cbd5@www.fastmail.com> <63F8F483-9817-4FD9-BDB1-3FC7EAE49595@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <63F8F483-9817-4FD9-BDB1-3FC7EAE49595@amsl.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 12:49:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpbDceEzUznkGo+JFfbn30OqnBgV9AOADH_uus059SWs=nUWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson via C430 <c430@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002129d905c340f3de"
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)
X-BeenThere: c430@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <c430.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/c430>, <mailto:c430-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/c430/>
List-Post: <mailto:c430@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:c430-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430>, <mailto:c430-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 19:50:04 -0000

Thank you for your work, Lynne! Do you have any sense on when this might
get published?

- jana

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 9:47 AM Lynne Bartholomew via C430 <
c430@rfc-editor.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> C430 mailing list
> C430@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>