IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Working Group Last Call: QUIC protocol drafts -30/-17

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 22 September 2020 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A55A3A1485 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u28naornRU2D for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 197FE3A1484 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:d505:2b78:dd03:a6b1] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:d505:2b78:dd03:a6b1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE913612C8E; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:36:41 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1600760201; bh=yX5MTKetzUD9aAHv7N1rCykMOXLBYMCbEZuHaYcHgzc=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=NMvC0UFM2jzq7ch8QFu2dCO3xZLjSH6Q7vIvq+rB1ONH+COy4uQw8ErZ6p3i7Jked MLpGivVKrfrtGgmLfX6AoBgvIAz3K9I8piH3aUaf3bNWZQI3rLq7OjRJhOqWcRgMMU YqjaA2B84YzRSn3uRwQsJnoiUT+y95Fl18+CX/Zg=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <E1F116F0-85E4-4D1C-92ED-52BFA98D6134@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_54CB795B-0ED5-4BBF-BEC2-722E81987ABE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call: QUIC protocol drafts -30/-17
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:36:41 +0300
In-Reply-To: <e390778c-f76d-c0d7-db44-69156c4ba324@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
To: Gorry Fairhust <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <9FDA60E7-9E4D-4A34-AC3F-80ACE64DC030@eggert.org> <e390778c-f76d-c0d7-db44-69156c4ba324@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-MailScanner-ID: BE913612C8E.A03D6
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/YQUU0Z_KdHEGB7k2tHjCm87bU1Q>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 07:36:58 -0000

Hi,

I opened the following three issues to track the discussion/resolutions on these comments:

On 2020-9-21, at 20:53, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> (i) I suggest the introduction for this spec starts abruptly. Is it worth considering one sentence top explain what QUIC is, in case someone read this document first? - One possible solution could be to move the text in section 3 to section 1? (To me, the section 3 text does not need to come after the Section 2 definitions.)

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4118

> 
> (ii) Does this read better with /for/ moved within the sentence?
> OLD:/At the endpoint, the connection ID is used to identify which QUIC connection the packet is intended for./
> NEW:/At the  endpoint, the connection ID is used to identify the QUIC connection for which  the packet is intended./

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4119

> (iii) I see the desire to emphasise the “NOT”, but I query if this is correct usage of a RFC2119 keyword in Appendix A?:
> /The following statements are NOT guaranteed to be true for every QUIC
>    version:/

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4120

Thanks,
Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email