Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-recovery-33: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <> Tue, 05 January 2021 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112FA3A0ADE; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:36:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <>
To: The IESG <>
Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-recovery-33: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:36:20 -0800
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 22:36:20 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-recovery-33: 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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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


Thanks to Derrell Piper for the SECDIR review.

** Section 3.  Per “The encryption level indicates the packet number space, as
described in [QUIC-TRANSPORT ]”, I think that reference here is Section 4.*
from [QUIC-TLS] as I can’t find a mapping between PNS and encryption levels as
discussed here in [QUIC-TRANSPORT].