IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12: (with COMMENT)

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 25 October 2022 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
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 7D2C9C14CF0D; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k-RR-db9drYU; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62b.google.com (mail-ej1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCECCC14CE3A; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id bj12so14356768ejb.13; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iaqaOSLVk+zgJPTSwgr7OOJhtErqm+8Nc0KZcdSBsI8=; b=nQfKTKekDXxlJo5T0hdu26L/DCAW0l6pFWcxeYa6zpNxkU6KzoQ87yL/e4l4qmFmeA BZ6KgSHD7IvSRYWy/LVTplCEwgVeogUCLrSRl2NVJ0EvpfJIJpWE3KT7AykFzQMXUC8x VQXnMV4IVCCk2XJ1psgjDXT4mNXlggC1ZElqWTXCQexI8bUG1FVibPAdf4OJOvuDkV+Z 6I4ZiyHg6gM8FzZoKw0N6DnYItON1sOTlk0ZF7I+GWF1p+wbM198OwaOOlLWpgKQdbQg AeUGIRdQsBCbn2zAHdWZFwc+m4HighouDr1rbIQvbXrPVOTjjXqZpMUrBZhLTkpZUckh P6TQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=iaqaOSLVk+zgJPTSwgr7OOJhtErqm+8Nc0KZcdSBsI8=; b=mXhJk7vGspZQysmhZOlVBPbmx6dWBKY/u5TbiTwFB8VB3sn5MV42akvgVexlctR5hG ayTXPlfRH5ATCTMO/xQhZux0CF/fiMlH4Hck2xySjqHGU2wrGlaSqIkHXwxBE+Smu0Mr HQ9MzwwkDfVNpWBsphtUJ4GM+zdl+i/AmM46Dn8C9sRQ4QYS1qw0XdYd9cF7G93pDTM7 tj1uZTVm6aiqQzrUA1YoZ3NAOWXdv/A9fE+dlYm3lcYxsoqyYmP3G8rKZihOjB0uepji AXygoJpp4Y27R00wXTGaJGpeQ/RnHNsXXMT41bzbA9tF44VYVMiRqLrHv4p/x/f/cG4L lUDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf31JgVlVMBkpC3an/3aVD///ardbEQcSSnTcE3+/VcXuSAV6XUT wm0+dRKk0KHu0MLES0gfAtF6XXHE+PeeWeB/1pQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4dAm3QhAsCG6hFCb2KzJuhdThQn/0tpCFj241enDzQ8h2Z2evMkH3QFXtvrVnfMRgfAgTjICudTeca8N1k23Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:fe0b:b0:787:f1d3:2105 with SMTP id wy11-20020a170906fe0b00b00787f1d32105mr33643845ejb.83.1666719064106; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <166668027662.35817.11958471017053381654@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <166668027662.35817.11958471017053381654@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:30:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+4xLjDTvkaqq0W58x4OehLc9ykZ7Oqc1f_OH04zsYkUSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12: (with COMMENT)
To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation@ietf.org, quic-chairs@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org, matt.joras@gmail.com, pspacek@isc.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c1ac9e05ebdf45f4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/l3xW-5hZ7DIhje-6C_jHJodvyh8>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 25 Oct 2022 17:31:06 -0000

Hi Éric, and thank you for your review. Responses inline.
David

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 11:44 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12: No Objection
>
> ## COMMENTS
>
> ### Section 2
>
> In `the versions are compatible` what is meant by 'compatible' ? Identical
> version ? Some clarity early in the document will help the reader without
> waiting the section 2.2.
>

Added a reference to 2.2:
https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/d45e03bc821775266f3b70985506957eb7cafdc6

### Section 11
>
> As the "TCP" reference is only used in a note in section 1.2, it should
> probably be an informative reference.
>

Sure, made it informative.
https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/344ba60a6366a6d119578c76a8a924b66730fd22

### Section 4
>
> ```
>    For QUIC version 1, version negotiation errors are signaled using a
>    transport error of type VERSION_NEGOTIATION_ERROR; see Section 10.2.
> ```
> Just wondering how an already deployed QUIC version 1 implementation that
> was
> not updated will know how to send this error type as it is only specified
> by
> the document in 2022... I am sure that I miss something else I would have
> balloted a DISCUSS.
>

An implementation of QUIC that does not support this version negotiation
extension will not send these errors.
There is no concept of version negotiation error in the QUIC v1 RFCs.

### Section 5
>
> Just to write my appreciation of this section that takes deployment in
> consideration. Good idea!
>

Thank you!

### Section 7.2
>
> Same explanations about the use of "SHOULD" will probably be welcome by
> implementers.
>

Added an explanation
https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/7ff7a8d044559b157b0fac15ddf54a7db44f0234

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email