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

Agreed - thanks for all the good work!

> On May 27, 2021, at 17:47, Martin Thomson via C430 <c430@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> I see that it is live. Thanks for all the good work.
> 
> On Fri, May 28, 2021, at 07:08, Alice Russo wrote:
>> 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 <jri.ietf@gmail.com> 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 <mt@lowentropy.net> 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)
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> C430 mailing list
> C430@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430