Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-qpack-20: (with COMMENT)

Lucas Pardue <> Thu, 21 January 2021 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E523A0D82; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:31:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dyFuiMTW0cU4; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A2CE3A0D70; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id kg20so2399339ejc.4; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:31:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AgT/vSThJH8TanqG39KTAEyTGQjsn5BfefauRGy27yc=; b=VoBjWi0lLoXKJZPlra0OOhB5cmo1WoDTQIWykRe6lmToyNrmnM6Fws2rAFHvkav5ZC ON5toTu0yHH1yh4Gm04Z11qDMX0exH9FkJwjx+kz0Bd6SwAlpIwfSOK31M0swnSoMZko bgSRSD03O4Ia+PE8FBTYBWytjkjPtXuRa8mVd7Ie9WiQKCc12I5RINY0kbT7e2coBZTW 03HhCsPRVqoe1aDQVlhlyE2+yIOvd41jTmm+OFsNlDaAMb5TYHILSB7TNM4gA2iHobHL 86ggDDgv1vKVylJvFNN69qiof3WshtaEPhj6ECGmAf8TngLhoeQa9OQHmka2TPsOPGKI 7aqA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AgT/vSThJH8TanqG39KTAEyTGQjsn5BfefauRGy27yc=; b=nxiQ/z2YGBPphud8eytOyfwk29z2fRJmxviBqlEUJNAJKxiPbH6JA2Ihwrq464uXhS ZdTkXXowymXyzqWcKx+kd1J7Blxac8EQe2rtG6fUmVe5w3gwbYghDyNP7AnONQHDvsyo ncK75B/t0nmALVdV+1H+njQRosw0/rSM/4Wn4ZXhRZeC7CVahJ1wKpcyKqNOeDS0G3C4 QWOQVEt9spF2ENqXoqal+3C1kr5zCM5PdBoqaFMsaeMbuN9uVW0JwiBpS7hNxj7JJLGc kSe5obQk0ng6G8n43O1ubQivyOCJKKngp3Df0RarIbuh4TF31gKk41nqfpBo9oLDn4Td bsAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533sOnj4Dc+MKOkugkbBmKeeBP6Tbm4mtm8gPrYqJdE7WMzZ/QQi JB1s7uGlG5X5pRjsPdYFBSLQsRELBZB8zcCdWbc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyV2AHE3+ZLQjb4pW6aZoLFeILGd6N3FA8o7q9wHuUYipJ97gPp2KltIibICTSfMJ0ahbHHYbNRD433GFVH5ic=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2755:: with SMTP id a21mr9490714ejd.374.1611239474555; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:31:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:31:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-qpack-20: (with COMMENT)
To: Robert Wilton <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, WG Chairs <>, QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000876f3e05b969ec77"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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 Jan 2021 14:31:19 -0000

Hi Robert,

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 9:38 AM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <> wrote:

> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-quic-qpack-20: 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for this well written document, like Eric I found it interesting
> to
> read.
> A few non blocking comments:
> I didn't read the draft in complete detail, but I'm not sure that I came
> away
> with a good understanding of what the receiver data structure would
> actually
> look like in an implementation.  The first paragraph in section 3.2
> suggests
> that this would be a list of field lines in FIFO order, but I would assume
> that
> a more performant representation would likely be used.  I appreciate that
> this
> is really an implementation detail, but possibly the introduction in
> section
> 3.2 might benefit with text giving a bit more overview of what the data
> structure is expected to look like.

> A couple of places in the document have pseudo code, which I presume is
> written
> in Python.  Possibly, it might be helpful to readers to indicate that the
> pseudo code follows a Python style syntax, although it is pretty intuitive
> regardless.

> Section 7.4 talks about implementation limits, but it wasn't obvious to me
> how
> a receiver is expected to behave if one of those limits is exceeded.
> Further
> in the case of strings, there seems to be a simple upper bound on the
> maximum
> size of the string of the table size.

> I note that the algorithm uses a static table.  Is there any consideration
> to
> be able to update or evolve that static table over time?  E.g., perhaps in
> 10
> years time, the traffic will have changed sufficiently enough that a new
> version of the static table should be generated.

On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs