Re: [C430] questions - Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 9000 <draft-ietf-quic-transport-34.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

Jana,

No; all set. Updated per Martin's reply. Will publish today.

Thanks,
RFC Editor/ar

> On May 27, 2021, at 12:58 PM, Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alice --
> 
> I agree with Martin's responses. Do you need anything else from us to push this forward?
> 
> Thanks!
> - jana
> 
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:08 PM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'm trying very hard not to say "I don't care here" :)  I just want the document published.
> 
> I will instead say that your judgment on these is good and I am happy to take these changes (I'm updating our copy with these changes right now.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> On Thu, May 27, 2021, at 13:17, Alice Russo wrote:
> > Authors,
> > As we prepare this document for publication, we have 4 questions.
> > 
> > 1) May Figure 4 be changed to <artwork>, 
> 
> Yes, <artwork> is what was intended.  This is probably down to a toolchain issue.  I'll have to follow up with Carsten here, but you should change this.
> 
> > 2) Capitalization nit in Section 22.1.1: Should these be lowercased to 
> > match the actual registries?
> > 
> > OLD:  Status:  "Permanent" or "Provisional".
> > 
> > NEW:  Status:  "permanent" or "provisional".
> 
> I prefer lowercase.
> 
> > 3) capitalization nit & IANA reg procedure
> > 
> > 3a) Would you like the IANA registry to be updated as follows (4 
> > instances to cap 'Date')?  If so, we'll send them a mail.
> > 
> > OLD: provisional registration date field update
> > NEW: provisional registration Date field update
> 
> I wouldn't have bothered, but since the other capitalization changes are out there, do them both at the same time.
> 
> > ("Date field" is used in the doc; "Date field update" does not appear.)
> >
> > 3b) Section 22.1.1: Should the reg procedure for "provisional 
> > registration date field update" -- i.e., First Come First Served -- be 
> > stated with those exact words, or is the current text* sufficiently 
> > clear? 
> > * Seems to be "A request to update the date on any provisional 
> > registration can be made without review from the designated expert(s)."
> 
> That is perfectly fine and in line with expectations.
> 
> > 4) Revisiting an AQ from earlier in the process:
> > Just checking if the current state is fine with you; we did not see the 
> > note that Martin mentioned. IANA 
> > (https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic/quic.xhtml#quic-versions) has:
> > 
> > Reserved for Version Negotiation
> > 
> > vs. Section 22.2:
> >    ... the note for this
> >    codepoint indicates that this version is reserved for version                
> >    negotiation.
> 
> The registry says
> "Reserved for Version Negotiation"
> 
> We agreed that it should probably say
> "Reserved for version negotiation"
> or even
> "reserved for version negotiation"
> (as this isn't necessarily a sentence or title)