issues
search
quicwg
/
datagram
In-progress version of draft-ietf-quic-datagram
https://quicwg.org/
30
stars
8
forks
source link
issues
Newest
Newest
Most commented
Recently updated
Oldest
Least commented
Least recently updated
Anomaly Protection Layer
#86
kjsisco
closed
1 year ago
1
Changes from AUTH48
#85
DavidSchinazi
closed
2 years ago
0
Would you like to change "and" to "-" here? Current (comment 4)
#84
LPardue
closed
2 years ago
2
For clarity, may this sentence be updated as follows? Original (comment 3)
#83
LPardue
closed
2 years ago
2
RFC Editor comment 2
#82
LPardue
closed
2 years ago
2
RFC Editor comment 1
#81
LPardue
closed
2 years ago
1
Editorial nits
#80
ekinnear
closed
2 years ago
0
Suggestion from Murray
#79
tfpauly
closed
2 years ago
0
Address John Scudder's AD comments
#78
tfpauly
closed
2 years ago
0
Grammar nit from Murray
#77
tfpauly
closed
2 years ago
0
Editorial suggestions from Benjamin Kaduk's IESG Evaluation
#76
kaduk
closed
2 years ago
0
Clarify 0-RTT TP
#75
DavidSchinazi
closed
2 years ago
0
Clarify fingerprinting security consideration
#74
tfpauly
closed
2 years ago
0
Include "About this draft" information in the markdown
#73
martinthomson
closed
2 years ago
2
Discussion venue
#72
DavidSchinazi
closed
2 years ago
0
Replace with Discussion Venue
#71
tfpauly
closed
2 years ago
0
Explain VLI demux rationale
#70
tfpauly
closed
2 years ago
1
Explain 0-RTT/1-RTT requirement
#69
tfpauly
closed
2 years ago
0
Bandwidth distribution to media and non-media traffic - applicablity statements
#68
zaheduzzaman
closed
2 years ago
5
Congestion related information to the application
#67
zaheduzzaman
closed
2 years ago
8
explain the recommendation pattern for supporting coexistence of multiple datagram flows
#66
zaheduzzaman
closed
2 years ago
0
consequence of not protecting DATAGRAM with 0-RTT or 1-RTT
#65
zaheduzzaman
closed
2 years ago
1
What happens if an application wants to send a too large datagram?
#64
mirjak
closed
2 years ago
7
Clarify 0-RTT handling
#63
mirjak
closed
2 years ago
4
rough in shepherd writeup
#62
LPardue
closed
2 years ago
0
Why do IANA considerations duplicate information from the body?
#61
LPardue
closed
2 years ago
1
Make IANA registrations permanent
#60
DavidSchinazi
closed
2 years ago
1
State clearly the IANA registration type of TP and frame type
#59
LPardue
closed
2 years ago
1
Update intro about reliable/unreliable data
#58
tfpauly
closed
2 years ago
0
grammar nit
#57
martinduke
closed
2 years ago
1
Is reliability really stream-based?
#56
martinduke
closed
2 years ago
4
Minor last call comments
#55
SpencerDawkins
closed
2 years ago
0
Question about DATAGRAM frame
#54
wangweiwei1188
closed
3 years ago
2
Not "strongly" associated
#53
tfpauly
closed
3 years ago
0
Not "strongly" associated
#52
tfpauly
closed
3 years ago
1
Can DATAGRAM frame belong to stream?
#51
wangweiwei1188
closed
3 years ago
2
Question about：This frame SHOULD be sent as soon as possible, and MAY be coalesced with other frames
#50
wangweiwei1188
closed
3 years ago
2
The
#49
wangweiwei1188
closed
3 years ago
0
Clarify recommendation on datagram acknowledgements
#48
DavidSchinazi
closed
3 years ago
0
Question about: "not used for loss recovery"
#47
ddragana
closed
3 years ago
5
update frame definition format
#46
LPardue
closed
3 years ago
0
Datagram No Ack Frame Proposal
#45
nibanks
closed
3 years ago
2
Datagram No Ack TP Proposal
#44
nibanks
closed
3 years ago
0
Please define the frame using RFC 9000 style
#43
LPardue
closed
3 years ago
1
Allow a Sender to Control Datagram ACKs
#42
nibanks
closed
3 years ago
42
Is it obvious that Datagram frame can be aggregated in the same QUIC packet
#41
gloinul
closed
3 years ago
6
Acknowledge Victor
#40
DavidSchinazi
closed
3 years ago
0
Update acknowledgements
#39
tfpauly
closed
3 years ago
0
Note retransmission logic difference in security considerations
#38
tfpauly
closed
3 years ago
1
Clarify scope to unreliable data only
#37
tfpauly
closed
3 years ago
0
Next