Thanks for your review, Stewart! please see reply below, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Stewart Bryant via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 10:40 AM ... > Summary: A well written text ready for publication [acm] Thanks! > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > 8.4. Running Code > > This section is for the benefit of the Document Shepherd's form, and > will be deleted prior to final review. > > SB> I am wondering if this was supposed to be deleted before this review, > or whether you plan to keep it? [acm] Yes, we'll certainly delete this section before the RFC Editors see it. However, there is a lot of review yet to happen. I really don't mind if the IESG sees it in some form, but we don't want to risk endorsing one implementation, IIRC. Also, this material could move to the Doc Shepherd's form, but has not yet: Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? ... I see that we need to update the reference in section 8.4: OLD [udpst] AT&T, "UDP Speed Test Open Broadband project", August 2020, <https://github.com/BroadbandForum <TBD>>. NEW [udpst] udpst Project Collaborators, "UDP Speed Test Open Broadband project", December 2020, <https://github.com/BroadbandForum/obudpst>. > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
