[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05

James Gruessing via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 09 October 2022 14:43 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: James Gruessing via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-quic-v2.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <166532658238.48475.17013440760168260317@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: James Gruessing <james.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2022 07:43:02 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/QoxT3FUTyZmtLDZOrKGDj8NWWi0>
Subject: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05

Reviewer: James Gruessing
Review result: Ready

This is my review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05 as part of ART Last Call review.

Overall this is a well written document that is clear in its writing, and I
have only one minor point of clarification.

Section 4.1 - "The client ignores Retry packets using other versions." - is
this supposed to be a normative phrase, i.e. "The client SHOULD/MUST ignore
Retry packets"? This sentence feels out of place in a paragraph with normative
text defining other requirements. Or is this a behaviour defined in VN that I
have missed?

[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-… James Gruessing via Datatracker
Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-q… Martin Duke
Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-q… James
Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-q… Martin Duke