Stewart, thanks for your review. Al, thanks for responding. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Feb 12, 2021, at 12:04 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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>. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
