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

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-invariants-12: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-invariants/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document. I find the idea of having an
'invariant' document interesting.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

Should the use of UDP transport be also an invariant ?

-- Abstract --
I have hard time to reconciliate "...that are expected to remain unchanged..."
with the intended status of standards track... and later with the sentence "A
protocol that does not conform to the properties described in this document is
not QUIC" in section 5.4.

-- Section 1 --
Are we really sure that QUIC will always between TWO endpoints ? I.e., no
multicast at all ?

-- Section 3 --
I second Barry's point, the presence of "This document uses terms and
notational conventions from [QUIC-TRANSPORT]." renders QUIC-TRANSPORT as a
normative reference

-- Section 4 --
Isn't this section somehow redundant as the last paragraph of section 3 states
"This document uses ... notational conventions from [QUIC-TRANSPORT]".