Re: Murray Kucherawy's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-qpack-20: (with COMMENT)

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

Thanks for the review. I've created GitHub issue(s) to track each comment
on the QUIC WG repository, see the URL(s) in line.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:33 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-quic-qpack-20: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-qpack/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Kudos on all the hard work that clearly went into this.  Makes our job
> easy,
> and this was also very educational.
>
> Some minor suggestions:
>
> In Section 2.1.3, I suggest "SHOULD avoid writing" ought to be "SHOULD NOT
> write". (For that matter, I don't know why this isn't a MUST NOT.)
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4797


> In Section 2.2.1:
>
>    While blocked, encoded field section data SHOULD remain in the
>    blocked stream's flow control window.
>
> Since SHOULD grants me a choice, why might I decide not to do what it says
> here?  Or should this be MUST?
>

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4798

Cheers
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs