[Mops] Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-mops-treedn-05: (with COMMENT)

[Leonard Giuliano <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman,

Thank you for the thoughtful review.  We have updated the draft and 
included a section on QUIC in Sect 7.2.  Please let us know if the latest 
revision addresses your concerns.  A diff can be found here:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-mops-treedn-05&url2=draft-ietf-mops-treedn-06&difftype=--html

Thanks,
Lenny 

On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker wrote:

| 
| Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
| draft-ietf-mops-treedn-05: No Objection
| 
| When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
| email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
| introductory paragraph, however.)
| 
| 
| Please refer to https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BAoMyMyOesjn14bB9LW2POz50DQRSWqCF8jlAPwMbwOKsCoGSo__lBH1hGBqjvOhR_eJPKBRRBu1cA$
| for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
| 
| 
| The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
| https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mops-treedn/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BAoMyMyOesjn14bB9LW2POz50DQRSWqCF8jlAPwMbwOKsCoGSo__lBH1hGBqjvOhR_eJPKAoYZVNcQ$
| 
| 
| 
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| COMMENT:
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 
| Thanks for working on this document to describe the architecture. It is
| interesting to read about this while MoQ is working on engress and distribution
| protocol for similar use cases.
| 
| Thanks to Magnus Westerlund for a great TSVART review, that has centainly
| improved the document and make my job easier :-).
| 
| While, I see most of transport related issues are covered, I found this -
| "Traditional unicast-based CDNs frequently rely on HTTPS over TCP transport"
| statement intersting as QUIC has gained good percentage of share of traffic in
| the Internet for the unicast CDN case (and QUIC also uses UDP). Given that, I
| will be intersted in getting comparision statements against QUIC as well in
| Section 7.2. I do not think this is super critical issue here, that is why I
| have balloted no objection, but for completeness it would be great. So, what
| does change if I though QUIC in the mix of tranport protocol?
| 
| 
| 
| --
| Mops mailing list -- [e-mail]
| To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
|