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

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 1:02 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>

There exist security products that explicitly disable extensibility by
default and
perform security analysis on all new extensions before allowing them. I
personally
would have preferred a MUST but the WG consensus was to land on SHOULD to
allow such products. We elected to not go into detail in explaining this in
the
document itself in order to avoid encouraging such behavior.

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.
>

Agreed, fixed via this commit:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/commit/13d89b5ff3dbecd91b5fa071c08d9714be975c16

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".
>

We're matching the IANA Considerations section of RFC 9000 here.