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

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

David,

Merci/thanks for having taken into account some of my comments. I sincerely believe that the changes improve the document (even if I would have preferred a little more).

Regards

-éric

From: David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:36
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, MASQUE <[e-mail]>, Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, thanks for your review!
Responses inline.
David

### Abstract
s/This document describes HTTP Datagrams/This document specifies HTTP Datagrams and the Capsule Protocol/ ?

I personally prefer "describes" here.

### Section 1
For consistency with other reasons, should a reference be added to `unreliable version of the CONNECT method` ?

We could add a reference to Section 9.3.6 of RFC 9110, but I think that this would make the sentence harder to read. There's already a reference to RFC 9110 in that paragraph. If this is just about consistency with the WebSocket, I'd favor readability or consistency.

### Section 2
```
   HTTP extensions can
   override these requirements by defining a negotiation mechanism and
   semantics for HTTP Datagrams.
```
s/can/MAY/ ? (but I am not a native English speaker) I also noticed that 'MAY' is used at the end of section 2.1.

Agreed, fixed via this commit:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/commit/d7d06b1ca504617a8121ba206fb526a06b1db780

### Section 2.2
I wonder whether this small section is useful. The text should rather go into the intro of section 3.

This small subsection provides continuity, it exists in the HTTP Datagrams section and points to how to encode HTTP Datagrams over capsules.

### Section 3.4
While I am not too familiar with HTTP & QUIC, I wonder when reading `Endpoints indicate that the Capsule Protocol is in use on a data stream by sending a Capsule-Protocol header field with a true value.` Until now, the Capsule Header is not yet defined even less how to send a true value (or did I misread part of the I-D)

The header is defined in the paragraph right above the one you quoted. It references the Structured Fields RFC and that explains how to send a true value.

### Section 3.5
```
Since QUIC DATAGRAM frames are required to fit within a QUIC packet,
   implementations that reencode DATAGRAM capsules into QUIC DATAGRAM
   frames might be tempted to accumulate the entire capsule before
   reencoding it.  This can cause flow control problems; see
   Section 3.2.
```
The problem is clear, but what is the recommendation for implementers ?

Agreed, fixed in this commit:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/commit/0de86dbe59612a4c006f89a51b878f1d5acdb325