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

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

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)
>