[Masque] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-10: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why might an implementer not do what the SHOULDs say in Section 3.2?  I guess
I'm wondering why, in a new thing, one would give someone a reason to produce
an implementation that is intentionally not forward-compatible.  Otherwise,
nice work; I like to complain about SHOULD a lot lately, and this document did
an above average job of using it.

I believe Sections 5.1 through 5.3 should refer to these registries as
sub-registries of the main "Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 3 (HTTP/3)"
registry.

Also, I don't think the MUSTs in Section 5.4 are appropriate when describing
IANA actions.  I suggest "will not" instead of "MUST NOT".