Dealing with IESG reviews

Lucas Pardue <> Wed, 06 January 2021 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F4F3A0EA4 for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 07:32:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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] 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 GXRSIFWOlAoa for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 07:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C577B3A0EAF for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 07:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 6so5575203ejz.5 for <>; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:32:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UtpXq2qKF/QxpOJzHDmXCn73mq8f3uNglLR0UXEUwt4=; b=aq2V7y4wHxKmxRPbaDqzrfvBFNaICPMkNoviwCxjdOPegadURFc/0MCxf1RnSBdbCd LqHCT+5a1I2TGdTMYzof8AnV6IOoLj+KT8Oc7KN4F2aWNxrM+cCfO3weCrJFeixLVupq jMysypWOsF45t7JFOASg5U45Ia3GDNUVpsh9ksaTLpQBKYJt4U98mI00YvmdvulelzTR sKS4zkUTs6qBaRhjqq9N5ow5lEJZ1uU3cFbiPzeE1Hle9ySW+sWaS++AnQCp+257iPBk cRfuyxQTjs+Tyd+wnnVsxdBJJVbTIKRnSUQUtThYIzXgp+sqEPtj2q0QV2bKnVbdywls GSSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UtpXq2qKF/QxpOJzHDmXCn73mq8f3uNglLR0UXEUwt4=; b=LxPwVpJjadg+k8ldY8pwbRnXEhavJMUSh/uMIqzaqGAYFPN36RYclIcKM1FmWSR1CY +yAXwBvxfvw+qrsVoIqnure0OJRkLUGlLobrDVvwEpgciGwpPDuO9b9UmX2+7eUiDMWi 52+cLxmC4QoMJJ/hv546ZjKKXmNCZbyxZLso2ArJswlD5cm+SN5iec/Znlr6pvH9UJ/O WK/X3kvIF8s1yADB9zTTUVBRCaOj93HQNXtfxVrEUdaWVVtR2U/tBg3wndFg7rok1/P4 ZOMoKHXyNzXItxl2drn3Pc+D/E+ZHTzEGMGvlHQu83U+irXv+C33vQZG1/EZo1TEbO2B wDOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LxhpUAgkl03T2s0sSKSZo8TueQiYkM+bPzutemBQ/2nvtCalQ felLHhuCcPBlN0vkJ3e+kiYqxrXegUgScAksliAYcGZhqCG5ew==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIgNSoIphVr/07HKeeSJoSgHIL/FVblKYLJIZ5IXEU5Pj8Ago9rYHHedrXY5z+yoe6QDe66kjq/8Xq5uMgIW8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:aec6:: with SMTP id me6mr3190359ejb.542.1609947120892; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:32:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:31:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Dealing with IESG reviews
To: QUIC WG <>
Cc: Lars Eggert <>, Magnus Westerlund <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003f7e1c05b83d0632"
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:32:05 -0000

Hi Folks,

As some of you may have noticed, ahead of the IESG telechat on January 7th,
our friends in the IESG are steadily entering their ballot positions on the
transport, recovery, tls, and invariants drafts.

The chairs have created issues in the QUIC WG GitHub repository to help
track follow on discussion and proposed actions. We use the label "iesg"
(and the appropriate document label):

Issues are also tracked in per-document milestones:

   - transport:
   - tls:
   - recovery:
   - invariants:

As you can see, there's a large volume of comments that have come in a
short amount of time. Naming things is an art, attempting to synthesize
concise titles on behalf of IESG reviewers risks us adding subjectivity to
the review and/or losing something in translation (not to mention it is
more time consuming). So to avoid that, each member's review comments or
discuss items has been given a unique integer identifier e.g. "Ben Kaduk's
TLS Comment 1". Since the titles are not super descriptive, one approach to
considering if you have an interest in a particular issue is to look at our
response email to each ballot response, which provides the issue link
underneath each of the reviewers' comments.

Many of these issues are editorial and under the remit of our editors to
address. Some will be assessed as duplicates or to require no specification
changes - aka close with no action. Some might be more thorny, especially
anything related to DISCUSS items. We'll send separate emails to boost the
visibility of these if it looks like spec changes are needed.

On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs