Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for another clear and well written document. One minor comment: (1) p 9, sec 3. Version Information Client-Sent Available Versions: When sent by a client, the Available Versions field lists all the versions that this first flight is compatible with, ordered by descending preference. Note that the version in the Chosen Version field MUST be included in this list to allow the client to communicate the chosen version's preference. Note that this preference is only advisory, servers MAY choose to use their own preference instead. Server-Sent Available Versions: When sent by a server, the Available Versions field lists all the Fully-Deployed Versions of this server deployment, see Section 5. Note that the version in the Chosen Version field is not necessarily included in this list, because the server operator could be in the process of removing support for this version. For the same reason, the Available Versions field MAY be empty. It might be helpful to explicitly indicate whether the sever-sent available versions are ordered (as per the client), or unordered. I presume that it is latter because it isn't stated, but it may improve readability of the document if this was explicit. Regards, Rob // Thank to Qin for OPSDIR review.
