This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

I just reviewed the proposed changes and they seem to address my concerns.

One bit to note: when pointing at unreliable messaging and stating that
congestion control would still be required is the right way to go:

"The use of an unreliable transport MUST NOT forego enforcing congestion
control as appropriate for that transport."

The question is: does this lead to any interoperable outcome unless it
is specified how to realise this.  Should one point to DCCP, QUIC Datagrams,
or something else concrete rather than leaving this up open.  What would
an implementer do?