[Taps] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-06: (with COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-06: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 1

"The UDP and UDP-Lite sockets API differs from that for TCP in several key
ways."

I was expecting the document to at least briefly describe the differences
following this. The socket option text that follows does not really fit the
bill. e.g. SO_REUSEADDR applies to TCP as well as UDP.