Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Include loss recovery references #6

Closed
martinthomson opened this issue Nov 22, 2016 · 1 comment
Closed

Include loss recovery references #6

martinthomson opened this issue Nov 22, 2016 · 1 comment
Labels
-recovery editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.

Comments

@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

None of the sections on various techniques in the loss recovery draft include citations. This is easy for RFCs (just use {{!RFCXXXX}} or {{?RFCXXXX}}), but academic papers will require the creation of a citation in the appropriate references section.
@martinthomson martinthomson added -recovery editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. labels Nov 22, 2016
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member Author

This is now a lot better. I imagine that this will continue to be a work in progress, but we don't need to specifically track this here.

@huitema huitema mentioned this issue Sep 20, 2017
Closed
siyengar pushed a commit to siyengar/base-drafts that referenced this issue May 17, 2018
@ekr
Merge pull request quicwg#6 from ekr/tls_encryption_levels
a18366f 
Tls encryption levels
britram pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 31, 2018
@huitema
Merge pull request #6 from quicwg/master
f45f53a 
Get fixes Sept 12
martinthomson pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 22, 2020
@erickinnear
Merge pull request #6 from ekr/migration_threat_model_todos
a8a9373 
First cut at handshake guarantees
martinthomson pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2020
@marten-seemann
Merge pull request #6 from quicwg/3691-prose
bb533c0 
Turn the absence clauses into prose
ianswett added a commit that referenced this issue May 6, 2021
@ianswett
Recovery RFCEditor #6
2e5bc63 
6) [rfced] Throughout the text, the following term appears to be used 
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent. 

application data / Application Data 

Note that RFC-to-be 9000 <draft-ietf-quic-transport> uses the lowercase 
form consistently.

We raised a similar question for RFC-to-be 9001; the authors decided on the following:

> The outcome is that figures will use title case for consistency (as appropriate) 
> and text will use the  lowercase form.  There is one reference to TLS 
> Application Data, where I have kept the title case to match the usage in RFC 8446.

(see https://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/c430/2021-April/000016.html)
janaiyengar added a commit that referenced this issue May 7, 2021
@janaiyengar
Merge pull request #4893 from quicwg/ianswett-application-data
5cccf6a 
Recovery RFCEditor #6
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
-recovery editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@martinthomson