Re: Martin Duke's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-applicability-16: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

thanks for your review!

We create an PR for your first two points. For the third point there is also a PR but I disagree a bit because the whole point of this document is to not make the reader read the whole spec. So maybe we can come to a compromise here and ensure the existing text is better aligned with the VN draft. There is an issue to track that and any further discussion if needed.

Mirja



On 21.04.22, 16:52, "Martin Duke via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-quic-applicability-16: Yes

    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-applicability/



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

    11.2 “ QUIC requires that endpoints generate fresh connection IDs for use on
    new network paths.”

    This is ambiguously phrased and ignores NAT rebinding. I suggest

    “If QUIC endpoints do not issue fresh connection IDs, then clients cannot
    reduce the linkability of address migration by using them.”

    11.3. Note that “retry service” has been renamed to “retry offload” and now has
    its own draft separate from QUIC-LB: draft-duke-quic-retry-offload (soon to be
    -ietf-)

    14. This entire section appears to be a duplicate of section 5 of the version
    negotiation draft. I suggest the authors verify that the latter has all the
    relevant information, and then replace this section with a reference to the VN
    draft.