quicwg/datagram

Issues

• RFC Editor comment 1

  #81 opened 3 years ago by LPardue
  1

• RFC Editor comment 2

  #82 opened 3 years ago by LPardue
  2

• For clarity, may this sentence be updated as follows? Original (comment 3)

  #83 opened 3 years ago by LPardue
  2

• Would you like to change "and" to "-" here? Current (comment 4)

  #84 opened 3 years ago by LPardue
  2

• What happens if an application wants to send a too large datagram?

  #64 opened 3 years ago by mirjak
  7

• Clarify 0-RTT handling

  #63 opened 3 years ago by mirjak
  4

• Congestion related information to the application

  #67 opened 3 years ago by zaheduzzaman
  8

• Bandwidth distribution to media and non-media traffic - applicablity statements

  #68 opened 3 years ago by zaheduzzaman
  5

• explain the recommendation pattern for supporting coexistence of multiple datagram flows

  #66 opened 3 years ago by zaheduzzaman
  0

• consequence of not protecting DATAGRAM with 0-RTT or 1-RTT

  #65 opened 3 years ago by zaheduzzaman
  1

• State clearly the IANA registration type of TP and frame type

  #59 opened 3 years ago by LPardue
  1

• Why do IANA considerations duplicate information from the body?

  #61 opened 3 years ago by LPardue
  1

• Is reliability really stream-based?

  #56 opened 3 years ago by martinduke
  4

• Question about DATAGRAM frame

  #54 opened 3 years ago by wangweiwei1188
  2

• Not "strongly" associated

  #52 opened 3 years ago by tfpauly
  1

• Allow a Sender to Control Datagram ACKs

  #42 opened 3 years ago by nibanks
  42

• Can DATAGRAM frame belong to stream?

  #51 opened 3 years ago by wangweiwei1188
  2

• Question about：This frame SHOULD be sent as soon as possible, and MAY be coalesced with other frames

  #50 opened 3 years ago by wangweiwei1188
  2

• The

  #49 opened 3 years ago by wangweiwei1188
  0

• Question about: "not used for loss recovery"

  #47 opened 3 years ago by ddragana
  5

• Is it obvious that Datagram frame can be aggregated in the same QUIC packet

  #41 opened 3 years ago by gloinul
  6

• Awkward phrasing of pacing requirement

  #32 opened 3 years ago by martinthomson
  1

• Lack of application-defined format

  #35 opened 3 years ago by MikeBishop
  5

• Please define the frame using RFC 9000 style

  #43 opened 3 years ago by LPardue
  1

• Consider retransmission bit leakage

  #2 opened 3 years ago by DavidSchinazi
  6

• Update acknowledgements section to include WG contibutors

  #33 opened 3 years ago by tfpauly
  0

• Question about scope: why only unreliable datagrams? Why not reliable datagrams too?

  #12 opened 3 years ago by skissane
  4

• remind implementors of the "fun" parts of no flow control

  #1 opened 3 years ago by DavidSchinazi
  2

• Reiterate need for 0-RTT profile

  #29 opened 3 years ago by martinthomson
  0

• Can be acknowledged?

  #24 opened 3 years ago by martinthomson
  0

• Overstating value of acknowledgments

  #26 opened 3 years ago by martinthomson
  0

• Text on Datagram's Interaction with Loss Recovery is a bit Light

  #8 opened 4 years ago by nibanks
  6

• Exposing datagram acknowledgements

  #15 opened 4 years ago by kixelated
  38

• No streams in datagrams?

  #6 opened 4 years ago by martinduke
  43

• Specify Max Payload Size instead of Max Frame Size

  #3 opened 4 years ago by DavidSchinazi
  26

• Document interaction of datagrams with pacing

  #16 opened 4 years ago by vasilvv
  2

• Instances of lowercase "may"

  #4 opened 4 years ago by LPardue
  5

• Why is the recommended `max_datagram_frame_size` 65536?

  #13 opened 4 years ago by tfpauly
  2

• Is max_datagram_frame_size Unidirectional Configuration?

  #7 opened 5 years ago by nibanks
  2

• Nit picking error condition for supported but not enabled

  #9 opened 5 years ago by LPardue
  4

• Anti-affinity for unreliable datagrams

  #5 opened 5 years ago by LPardue
  3