-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
First draft of QAD blog post #388
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.
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
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
Erm, it's not showing up in the preview. But comparing to my last post I think I do the same things. What did I do wrong? |
Skimming this now I wonder if the whole NAT Types section needs to be there. I added it to try and explain why you need to contact multiple STUN or QAD servers, because STUN has an obscure feature where a single STUN server can bind to multiple IP addresses and you can ask the STUN server to contact you from a different address to check if you're endpoint-dependent or endpoint-independent and QAD does not have an equivalent mechanism so it seems like a fair thing to put into a STUN vs QAD comparison. But... that was a whole load of details that I didn't end up writing, because in the end I thought it was too niche. |
FWIW I liked the NAT types section. I wish more people adopted the endpoint-dependent and endpoint-independent terms, and sprinkling in some NAT teachings into this blog post makes sense IMO. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ayy, this is great & very informative, though I fear I may have crushed your voice in this review 😂
But I think that the stun bits might be 30% too sassy
Otherwise, I mostly read for obvious grammar mistakes. Will do another pass!
Co-authored-by: ramfox <[email protected]>
No worries, that's exactly the feedback I asked for! |
I've gone through the entire thing again. Thanks @matheus23 for the feedback on the NAT Types section being useful, I've left it in as it is already referred to by the surrounding bits. I think this might be in a reasonable shape now. |
I don't mind other titles either, but this is already an improvement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Typos!
Co-authored-by: Philipp Krüger <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Only went through half of this so far, I have to run to help out a friend for an hour, but I'll be back to finish soon!
Co-authored-by: ramfox <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great!
Made a last batch of suggested changes.
Just make sure to adjust the date and then we should merge/publish 🙌
there was a need for endpoints to learn about their reflexive transport addresses. | ||
For this the STUN spec was created, | ||
which by now has evolved into [RFC 8489]. | ||
A sizable tome. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
😂
src/app/blog/qad/page.mdx
Outdated
export const post = { | ||
draft: false, | ||
author: 'Floris Bruynooghe', | ||
date: '2025-08-26', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if we want to publish this for monday, we should just put 2025-09-01 & then merge. The post will then just self publish on monday.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It does still show up in the preview, does the preview work differently?
Co-authored-by: ramfox <[email protected]>
I haven't given this a read-through myself yes, so this could still be
rough. Review for:
post I wrote. I didn't feel like using overusing the voice from the
last post.
And of course, spelling grammar, sentence structure. There are some
rather too long sentences still I think, I'll still try to improve
those in a next round.