Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18> for your review
Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> Wed, 21 September 2022 20:59 UTC
Return-Path: <jmahoney@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A7EC14F5E1 for <auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZRmVHnrGLD1k for <auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A350FC1524AE for <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B87425A375; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xQ64dAIi50Mn; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.203] (unknown [47.186.48.51]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D63CA4259777; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a955370c-78b8-c27f-7d88-714094b4f90a@amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:58:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>, "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Cc: "quic-ads@ietf.org" <quic-ads@ietf.org>, "quic-chairs@ietf.org" <quic-chairs@ietf.org>, "matt.joras@gmail.com" <matt.joras@gmail.com>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20220825182149.F31EA6AAEC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <69FF8D79-D601-4730-8839-E09C44B7F37B@trammell.ch> <3237fd9c-b804-8ee0-1136-7be392a2ff83@amsl.com> <8E819A0D-8FFB-493E-9601-1841E2708B23@ericsson.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <8E819A0D-8FFB-493E-9601-1841E2708B23@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/wqyC4ezrJvThVTdbxrQ-HcO0-Zo>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-applicability-18> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 20:59:05 -0000
Hi Mirja, We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9308 We can now move this document forward in the publication process because it does not have a normative reference to [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY], which is currently listed as an I-D in the Informative References section. However, would you like to wait for RFC 9312 to complete AUTH48 so that the [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY] reference can be updated to point to the RFC? Best regards, Jean On 9/21/22 8:32 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > Hi Jean, > > thanks all changse look good to me! Thanks! > > Mirja > > > > On 21.09.22, 00:13, "Jean Mahoney" <jmahoney@amsl.com> 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, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 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, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 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 > >> > >> * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). > >> > >> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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 >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-quic-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9308 <draft-ietf-q… Jean Mahoney