Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18> for your review

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jean,

thanks all changse look good to me! Thanks!

Mirja



On 21.09.22, 00:13, "Jean Mahoney" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Brian,

    Thank you for your response and your approval. We have noted your 
    approval on the AUTH48 status page:

        https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9308

      We have updated the document with your feedback:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-lastrfcdiff.html (these 
    changes side by side)

        https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.txt
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.pdf
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.html
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.xml
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-diff.html (all changes 
    inline)
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-rfcdiff.html (all changes 
    side by side)
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-auth48diff.html (all 
    AUTH48 changes inline)
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-xmldiff1.html (XML
        https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-xmldiff2.html

    Please note that we have updated the formatting and placement of the 
    Contributors section (apologies for not catching that sooner).

    We'll await word from Mirja regarding other AUTH48 feedback and/or approval.

    Best regards,
    RFC Editor/jm

    On 9/20/22 2:14 PM, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
    > Greetings,
    >
    > Replies inline
    >
    >> On 25 Aug 2022, at 20:21, [e-mail] wrote:
    >>
    >> Authors,
    >>
    >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
    >>
    >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
    >> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
    > QUIC, application protocol mapping, deployment
    >
    >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: FYI, we have expanded TAPS in the following:
    >>
    >> Original:
    >>    The IETF TAPS specifications [I-D.ietf-taps-arch] describe a system
    >>    with a common API for multiple protocols.
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>   The IETF Transport Services (TAPS) specifications [TAPS-ARCH] describe
    >>   a system with a common API for multiple protocols.
    >> -->
    > This edit is fine
    >
    >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: We're having difficulty parsing the following sentence. Does rewriting the last part of the sentence improve readability?
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>    In some cases, it might be sufficient to limit application data sent
    >>    in 0-RTT to that which only causes actions at a server that are known
    >>    to be free of lasting effect.
    >>
    >> Perhaps (clarifying that the data should not cause lasting effects):
    >>    In some cases, it might be sufficient to limit the application data sent
    >>    in 0-RTT to data that does not cause actions with lasting effects at a
    >>    server.
    >> -->
    > The suggested edit is good.
    >
    >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: This is the one instance of "NAT address rebinding", whereas the other instances are simply "NAT rebinding". Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent.
    >>
    >> Original:
    >>    By using a connection ID, QUIC is designed to be robust to NAT address
    >>    rebinding after a timeout.
    >> -->
    > Suggest cutting “address”:
    >
    > NEW:
    >
    > By using a connection ID, QUIC is designed to be robust to NAT
    > rebinding after a timeout.
    >
    >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: We found these sentences in the third paragraph difficult to parse because of the number of noun modifiers.
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>    The size and rate of transport flow control credit updates can affect
    >>    performance....
    >>
    >>    Some implementations might have independent transport-layer and
    >>    application-layer receive buffers...
    >>
    >>    However, a common flow control implementation technique is to extend
    >>    credit...
    >>
    >> Perhaps (splitting apart the descriptions):
    >>    The size and rate of updates to flow control credit can affect
    >>    performance.... .
    >>
    >>    Some implementations might have independent receive buffers at the
    >>    transport layer and application layer....
    >>
    >>    However, a common implementation technique is to extend flow control
    >>    credit...
    >> -->
    > All of these suggested edits are good.
    >
    >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5: Are there some words missing in the example given in the following sentence?
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>    An application that uses QUIC and communicates a cumulative stream
    >>    limit might require the connection to be closed before the limit is
    >>    reached, e.g., to stop the server to perform scheduled maintenance.
    >>
    >> Perhaps (adding "in order"):
    >>    An application that uses QUIC and communicates a cumulative stream
    >>    limit might require the connection to be closed before the limit is
    >>    reached, e.g., to stop the server in order to perform scheduled
    >>    maintenance.
    >> -->
    > This suggested edit is good.
    >
    >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 5: We're having difficulty with the following sentence because we do not see "DATA frames" in RFC 9000. We do see MAX_DATA and MAX_STREAM_DATA frames, but Section 13 discusses STREAM frames. Also, should "packets ... frames" be "packets' ... frames"? Please let us know how we may update this sentence.
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>    By default, many implementations will try to maximally pack QUIC
    >>    packets DATA frames from one or more streams to minimize bandwidth
    >>    consumption and computational costs (see Section 13 of [QUIC]).
    >>
    >> -->
    > I believe we misspelled “STREAM” here.
    >
    > NEW:
    >
    > By default, many implementations will try to pack STREAM frames from
    > from one or more streams into each QUIC packet, in order to minimize
    > bandwidth consumption and computational costs (see Section 13 of [QUIC]).
    >
    >
    >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 8: Does rewording the following sentence improve readability?
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>    For applications with a fallback to TCP that do not already have an
    >>    alternate mapping to UDP, usually the registration (if necessary) and
    >>    use of the UDP port number corresponding to the TCP port already
    >>    registered for the application is appropriate.
    >>
    >> Perhaps (making "application" single, more clearly stating what is usually appropriate):
    >>    For an application with a fallback to TCP that does not already have an
    >>    alternate mapping to UDP, it is usually appropriate to register (if
    >>    necessary) and use of the UDP port number corresponding to the TCP
    >>    port already registered for the application.
    >> -->
    > NEW:
    >
    > For an application with a fallback to TCP that does not already have an
    > alternate mapping to UDP, it is usually appropriate to register (if
    > necessary) and use the UDP port number corresponding to the TCP
    > port already registered for the application.
    >
    >
    > (there’s a spurious “of”: “use of the UDP port…” -> “use the UDP port...”.)
    >
    >
    >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1: Would you like to provide a reference for memcached?
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>    For example, these source ports are associated with
    >>    applications known to be vulnerable to reflection attacks often due
    >>    to server misconfiguration:
    >>
    >>    *  port 53 - DNS [RFC1034]
    >>
    >>    *  port 123 - NTP [RFC5905]
    >>
    >>    *  port 1900 - SSDP [SSDP]
    >>
    >>    *  port 5353 - mDNS [RFC6762]
    >>
    >>    *  port 11211 - memcached
    >> -->
    > Nope, the port is registered with IANA without reference. However, the service name is “memcache”, not “memcached”, so let’s reference by service name.
    >
    >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 11.2: FYI, we replaced the CID acronym, which is not used elsewhere, with "Connection ID" for clarity. Please let us know if there are any objections.
    >>
    >> Original:
    >>    Analysis of the lifetimes of six-tuples (source and destination
    >>    addresses as well as the migrated CID) may expose these links anyway.
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>    Analysis of the lifetimes of 6-tuples (source and destination
    >>    addresses as well as the migrated Connection ID) may expose these
    >>    links anyway.
    >> -->
    > This edit is good.
    >
    >> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 11.2: Does removing redundant wording improve the readability of the following?
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>    Conversely, in the opposite limit where every server handles multiple
    >>    simultaneous migrations, even an exposed server mapping may be
    >>    insufficient information.
    >>
    >> Perhaps:
    >>    Conversely, when every server handles multiple
    >>    simultaneous migrations, even an exposed server mapping may be
    >>    insufficient information.
    >> -->
    > Yes, the suggested edit is good.
    >
    >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 11.3: RFC 5077 has been obsoleted by RFC 8446. How may we update the following cross reference?
    >>
    >> Original:
    >>    Section 4 of [RFC5077] describes an example approach for constructing
    >>    TLS resumption tickets that can be also applied for validation tokens,
    >>    however, the use of more modern cryptographic algorithms is highly
    >>    recommended.
    >>
    >> —>
    > I believe the right thing to do here is not to update the cross-reference, as we're pointing out that the
    > TLS session ticket example (removed from 8446 as far as I can tell) is useful guidance for building validation tokens.
    >
    > I would suggest some clarifying text here to note that we do, indeed, know that we're citing an obsolete RFC:
    >
    > NEW:
    >
    > The approach described in Section 4 of RFC5077 for constructing
    > TLS resumption tickets provides an example that can also be applied to
    > validation tokens. However, the use of more modern cryptographic algorithms
    > than those presented in this example is highly recommended.
    >
    >> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 16: Does the following rewording improve the readability of the sentence?
    >>
    >> Current:
    >>    This document has no actions for IANA; however, note that Section 8
    >>    recommends that application bindings to QUIC for applications using
    >>    TCP register UDP ports analogous to their existing TCP registrations.
    >>
    >> Perhaps:
    >>    This document has no actions for IANA; however, note that Section 8
    >>    recommends that an application that has already registered a TCP port
    >>    but wants to specify QUIC as a transport should register a UDP port
    >>    analogous to their existing TCP registration.
    >> -->
    > Yes, this edit is good.
    >
    >> 14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology: We have made the following updates throughout the text. Please let us know if any changes are necessary.
    >>
    >> a) The following terms were used inconsistently. We have chosen the latter form:
    >>
    >>    four-tuple / 4-tuple
    >>    five-tuple / 5-tuple
    >>    six-tuple / 6-tuple
    >>    application level / application layer
    >>    transport level / transport layer
    >>    Zero RTT / 0-RTT
    >>
    >>
    >> b) Although the following term was formatted consistently, we have updated it to match other RFCs:
    >>
    >>    DiffServ / Diffserv (RFC 7657)
    >> -->
    > These edits are good.
    >
    >
    >> 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed.
    >> -->
    > Inclusive language checks are integrated into the CI pipeline used to build the document, and have addressed issues flagged by that check from time to time. A final check of the document revealed no issues.
    >
    >
    > Modulo changes in this message, I approve this RFC for publication.
    >
    > Thanks, cheers,
    >
    > Brian
    >
    >
    >> Thank you.
    >>
    >> RFC Editor/st/jm
    >>
    >>
    >> On 8/25/22 1:17 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
    >>
    >> *****IMPORTANT*****
    >>
    >> Updated 2022/08/25
    >>
    >> RFC Author(s):
    >> --------------
    >>
    >> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
    >>
    >> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
    >> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
    >> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
    >> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
    >>
    >> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
    >> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
    >> your approval.
    >>
    >> Planning your review
    >> ---------------------
    >>
    >> Please review the following aspects of your document:
    >>
    >> *  RFC Editor questions
    >>
    >>    Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
    >>    that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
    >>    follows:
    >>
    >>    <!-- [rfced] ... -->
    >>
    >>    These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
    >>
    >> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
    >>
    >>    Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
    >>    coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
    >>    agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
    >>
    >> *  Content
    >>
    >>    Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
    >>    change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
    >>    - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
    >>    - contact information
    >>    - references
    >>
    >> *  Copyright notices and legends
    >>
    >>    Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
    >>    RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
    >>    (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
    >>
    >> *  Semantic markup
    >>
    >>    Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
    >>    content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
    >>    and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
    >>    <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
    >>
    >> *  Formatted output
    >>
    >>    Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
    >>    formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
    >>    reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
    >>    limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
    >>
    >>
    >> Submitting changes
    >> ------------------
    >>
    >> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
    >> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
    >> include:
    >>
    >>    *  your coauthors
    >>
    >>    *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
    >>
    >>    *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
    >>       IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
    >>       responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
    >>
    >>    *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
    >>       to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
    >>       list:
    >>
    >>      *  More info:
    >>         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
    >>
    >>      *  The archive itself:
    >>         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
    >>
    >>      *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
    >>         of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
    >>         If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
    >>         have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
    >>         [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
    >>         its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
    >>
    >> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
    >>
    >> An update to the provided XML file
    >> — OR —
    >> An explicit list of changes in this format
    >>
    >> Section # (or indicate Global)
    >>
    >> OLD:
    >> old text
    >>
    >> NEW:
    >> new text
    >>
    >> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
    >> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
    >>
    >> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
    >> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
    >> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
    >> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
    >>
    >>
    >> Approving for publication
    >> --------------------------
    >>
    >> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
    >> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
    >> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
    >>
    >>
    >> Files
    >> -----
    >>
    >> The files are available here:
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.xml
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.html
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.pdf
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.txt
    >>
    >> Diff file of the text:
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-diff.html
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
    >>
    >> Diff of the XML:
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308-xmldiff1.html
    >>
    >> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
    >> diff files of the XML.
    >>
    >> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.original.v2v3.xml
    >>
    >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
    >> only:
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9308.form.xml
    >>
    >>
    >> Tracking progress
    >> -----------------
    >>
    >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
    >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9308
    >>
    >> Please let us know if you have any questions.
    >>
    >> Thank you for your cooperation,
    >>
    >> RFC Editor
    >>
    >> --------------------------------------
    >> RFC9308 (draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18)
    >>
    >> Title            : Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol
    >> Author(s)        : M. Kühlewind, B. Trammell
    >> WG Chair(s)      : Matt Joras, Lucas Pardue
    >>
    >> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker