Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-quic-v2-06: 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-v2/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thank you. Another well written, easy to read, draft from the QUIC WG. Minor level comments: (1) p 2, sec 1. Introduction QUIC version 2 is meant to mitigate ossification concerns and exercise the version negotiation mechanisms. The changes provide an example of the minimum set of changes necessary to specify a new QUIC version. As a minor comment, I would suggest adding some text to the first sentence to cite that choosing a value other than 2 for the version number, and changing the type field assignment of the long header packet format, are examples of mitigating ossification concerns. Specifically, I presume it isn't the case that all new QUIC versions need to renumber the type fields or choose a fixed random number for the version number? I.e., strictly speaking I assume that these are not the minimal set of changes for any new QUIC version? Regards, Rob // Thanks to Bo for the OPS DIR review.
