Roman Danyliw's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-transport-33: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <> Tue, 05 January 2021 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EABB53A0A73; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:51:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <>
To: The IESG <>
Subject: Roman Danyliw's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-transport-33: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:51:13 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 22:51:14 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-transport-33: Yes

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 to the WG and implementation community for this document.

** Section 3.  Per “The state machines shown in this section are largely
informative ”, why the qualifier of “largely”?

** Section 8.1.  Per “Servers SHOULD ensure that tokens sent in Retry packets
are only accepted for a short time”, is there any guidance on what a short time
is here?

** Section 21.5.  Per “QUIC servers SHOULD NOT be deployed in networks that
also have inadequately secured UDP endpoints”, I was wondering if this caution
is a realistic.