IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Mon, 10 October 2022 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B09C152581; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 TYm76sJcnlky; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 6ADFCC15257E; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com with SMTP id de14so7653782qvb.5; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9pRXZxRcN1nRnLBVWGrhpwrOAlZn+BRBtoJgURkp6ow=; b=AadyjJBc/eDhDdxKMkzeGhoRi59y/pTkoUz8X4mhrlQ6eUBeK86/lpLXLHGXuWweEd Jk7H4DQUamC1JMSIJM/VfSB+LloWoxJ4c0IYDrVHmd4kg6ZHy2pJvSFk2q5UTc3qH/RO c5r+YMsnpM177LTTvHZ4wSFsj0JZ7787JHllqrU22wtLYoy4/a8k61E7OpXLoQUSZEnT NlCg0tLqfMtfUwo1SL8RLEjyn8K+Gc808G806Dl8RZFYcIEQorbryeXsutXRriyejtVc r7KzbmdBICWLtbdI9Wqvc9EjaJVKG+l+qeitm1OQ0fEWJlWAiXpN/aOlasNu0HEEwHaS 8xvw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=9pRXZxRcN1nRnLBVWGrhpwrOAlZn+BRBtoJgURkp6ow=; b=tfEpbgKJgFvcLBsYTnwYVObwcJaLvmYphzaFdcQ79A7VwLUj+kC1KNh96DUCDCPobr k1o6HkWjDqtoacvy9hdpC5LLh5uiyiZ/3Ude0G55iKCu/8/G22CJruDtrMugQiDlIBUY 6SqKjnXJTssnsEm3lVQIvSZvqedc0r72MRUgagAz07GY5mcFd/HXL4rLxYhtDAcHpxLf fPBfSjbQttiyxYJmMskULVs9AAlbVD/QI3f0w1ztR3D87PBDSI36zSPczL4EFibygfDl nSvWbkwiUQIhSz8/n+8VrJIjyDbF7b84nhHElntddvaZG174dltHNY2lBUcsj67XwFUw /ymw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2gv2UhrYv8MJwp6QJQWHDHgIhZ9e6iY6jPJFBvPTUbJ4OKTwa+ tOxHcgUQWHaKryZjde1+4mbPWGiukmbWWVIgJyg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4qV2S4h6H9VwsN2VQTJ+QMcaLg44TdZY8GTmH9/7tQCql0oqOPnr6PMqusjiPOnWJXVyXPqpPv7bNvG1TB8JU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d85:b0:4b1:8e37:902d with SMTP id e5-20020a0562140d8500b004b18e37902dmr15771264qve.120.1665428304225; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <166532658238.48475.17013440760168260317@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <166532658238.48475.17013440760168260317@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:58:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQkCYWW2cTWtUETimzEPwAuJDZ5sJ6Cm_Kzf5=vN-6Rhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Gruessing <james.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-quic-v2.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078eb7105eab2be94"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/OpNBBAMfaoPQz683UcQZ-Yag6EI>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 18:58:27 -0000

James,

Thanks for the review!

I honestly don't think it's a big deal either way -- I'll add either
normative word if you insist, but I don't think a requirement is necessary
here and it flows a bit better this way in my opinion. "ignore" is
obviously a pretty loose word to use -- it would certainly be OK for a
client to log it or something.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 7:43 AM James Gruessing via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: James Gruessing
> Review result: Ready
>
> This is my review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05 as part of ART Last Call review.
>
> Overall this is a well written document that is clear in its writing, and I
> have only one minor point of clarification.
>
> Section 4.1 - "The client ignores Retry packets using other versions." - is
> this supposed to be a normative phrase, i.e. "The client SHOULD/MUST ignore
> Retry packets"? This sentence feels out of place in a paragraph with
> normative
> text defining other requirements. Or is this a behaviour defined in VN
> that I
> have missed?
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email