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