Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-v2-06: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-v2-06: 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-quic-v2/



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

Hi,

Thank you.  Another well written, easy to read, draft from the QUIC WG.

Minor level comments:

(1) p 2, sec 1.  Introduction

   QUIC version 2 is meant to mitigate ossification concerns and
   exercise the version negotiation mechanisms.  The changes provide an
   example of the minimum set of changes necessary to specify a new QUIC
   version.

As a minor comment, I would suggest adding some text to the first sentence to
cite that choosing a value other than 2 for the version number, and changing
the type field assignment of the long header packet format, are examples of
mitigating ossification concerns.  Specifically, I presume it isn't the case
that all new QUIC versions need to renumber the type fields or choose a fixed
random number for the version number?  I.e., strictly speaking I assume that
these are not the minimal set of changes for any new QUIC version?

Regards,
Rob

// Thanks to Bo for the OPS DIR review.