Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-quic-manageability-14
Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 19 April 2022 17:56 UTC
Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 071963A0FC7;
Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id yRpQsa25fgpD; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7264F3A0F74;
Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown
[IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:9180:dfcf:fc10:7f39])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14E751DAC08;
Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:56:08 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim;
t=1650390968; bh=6V102JMe5S1eIOhwCYHXRXMEH1S2TDxoATlvSzf4VCs=;
h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To;
b=T/p+zKJ0aU6QbGTXLrCVpq1tCcM0QKYtakvOdoIbzFWra2libYxxp5tXrnHxmELgJ
zJdKZKsCwKAE6zAYi3xG9VTVGNrWyyS+4+3IZIwl+T3abv0ozQ7XKzSv97odzWfN1r
Bd59VtL2DvpqocSxdgd2R6A1KwZHYkmxBV+J3GMM=
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_EC9C4314-BB0D-4A4B-8067-A87D21D0D846";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <164428376729.4050.6692120564997576759@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:56:02 +0300
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org,
draft-ietf-quic-manageability.all@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org
Message-Id: <711CD6A1-7BEC-4895-95A3-783718D5952D@eggert.org>
References: <164428376729.4050.6692120564997576759@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 14E751DAC08.A8408
X-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service
Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/s2PpdF0ZzaXmqPUAOQnqmYo_Gtg>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-quic-manageability-14
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:56:28 -0000
Elwyn, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2022-2-8, at 3:29, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-quic-manageability-14 > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 2022-02-07 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-02-07 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > Ready with various nits. The text is extremely dense and I am not sufficiently > close to tis work to determine whether the advice offered is entirely > appropriate or accurate. Most of the nits are trivially correctable, but some > thought needs to go into making the text in s3.1 fture prooof. > > Major issues: > None > > Minor issues: > None > > Nits/editorial comments: > Nits: > > General: s/e.g. /e.g., / (6 places) > > s1: A note about the origin of terminology (e.g., Connection ID) is needed. > Primarily RFC 9000, I take it. > > s1, para 3: s/This is achieved through integrity protection of the wire > image/This is enforced through integrity protection of the wire image/ > > Figures 1 and 6: The terms 0-RTT and 1-RTT are shown as 0RTT and 1RTT in the > figures. Please make consistent. > > s1, para 4: s/an QUIC/a QUIC/ > > s2.1, para 6: s/QUIC version 1 uses version/QUIC version 1 uses version > number/; s/All deployed versions/Details of all deployed versions/ > > s2.3, para 1: In the last sentence s/the use of Alt-Svc/ the of the HTTP > Alternative Services mechanism [RFC7838]/ > > s2.3, para 2 (and 4 other places): The abbreviation or term 5-tuple is not in > the RFC Edito'r's list of abbreviations and is not used in RFC 9000. I think > this term needs to be expanded (probably in the list of terms - see comment on > s1). > > s2.4 and elsewhere: The term 'flights [of datagrams]' is not defined. I > notice that the term was not defined in RFC 9000 where it is introduced > originally. > > s2.4, para : s/detailed Figure 2/detailed in Figure 2/ > > s2.4, para 8: s/Figure4/(Figure 4)/, s/Figure 5/(Figure 5)/ > > s2.4, para 11: s/than in the Client/that is sent in the Client/ > > s2.4, para 13: "When the client uses 0-RTT connection resumption, the Client > Initial flight can also include one or more 0-RTT packets, as shown in Figure > 6." Where is this connection resumption defined? It isn't in RFC 9000 > AFAICS. > Maybe https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuhn-quic-0rtt-bdp-08? > Please supply a suitable explanation/reference. > > s2.6, para 1 and s3.5, para 4: Be consistent between 5-tuple and five-tuple > please. > > s3.1, para 2: I think the 'DNS' protocol deserves its full title DNS over > Dedicated QUIC Connections. > > s3.1, para 2: The second sentence regarding implementations at the time of > writing is not future proof. This needs to be rewritten to express that there > is an expectation of multiple applications without tying it to somewhat > hypothetical implementations that might or might not exist by the time this > document is published as an RFC.s3.5, paa 4: > > s3.2, para 2: "Connection establishment can therefore be detected using > heuristics similar to those used to detect TLS over TCP." Where would a reader > find out what are hese heuritics? > > s3.4, last para: s/E.g./For example/ > > s3.8.2, para 8: s/i.e. /i.e., / > > s4.2, para 4: s/well- defined/well-defined/ > > s4.2, para 6: s/unnecessary/unnecessarily/ > > s4.2, para 10: s/Specially/In particular/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Elwyn Davies via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review… Lars Eggert