Thank Rob! I agree with you, so I made the following editorial commit to address your comment: https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/50a9fb8b81252b74116b41e499d5618c14af5451 It adds <<The ordering of the versions in this field does not carry any semantics.>>
David On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:55 AM Robert Wilton via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > >
