Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-v2-06: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-v2-06: 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 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-v2/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-quic-v2-06
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Matt Joras for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the
WG consensus *even* if the justification of the intended status is rather weak.

Please note that Vladimír Čunát is the DNS directorate reviewer (at the chairs'
request) and you may want to consider his review as well:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-quic-v2-05-dnsdir-lc-cunat-2022-10-12/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Section 3.1

Just curious: why not used 0x0000002 as the version number... For curious
readers (including some ADs), some explanations will be welcome.

### Section 6

While I still wonder about the justification of this document (i.e., is it
based on some measurements of some middleboxes ?), I dislike ossification,
hence supporting this document.

*BUT*, if an ossified firewall forces the negotiation to use version 1, then
how would this ossification be known outside of the client ? Will there be a
back channel from the client to do some instrumentation ?

### Section 9

RFC 8126 section 3.1 recommends to specify the URL of the modified registry,
i.e., https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic/quic.xhtml#quic-versions .

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments