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

Martin Duke via Datatracker <> Thu, 21 April 2022 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4263A1779; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <>
To: The IESG <>
Subject: Martin Duke's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-applicability-16: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.0.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:52:12 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:52:13 -0000

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 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


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

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