Hi Warren, Your comments are reflected here: https://github.com/quicwg/quic-v2/pull/83
LMK if I messed up. On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 6:20 PM Warren Kumari via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Warren Kumari 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Quoting Rob Wilton: > "Thank you. Another well written, easy to read, draft from the QUIC WG." - > Thank you for this, and also thanks to Bo Wu for the OpsDir review. > > I'd note that the start of the Abstract ("This document specifies QUIC > version > 2, which is identical to QUIC version 1 except for some trivial details.") > made > me schnort, and got me some odd looks from seat-mate on a plane... > > A few (very much non-blocking) comments: > Section 3. Differences with QUIC Version 1 > "QUIC version 2 endpoints MUST implement the QUIC version 1 specification > as > described in [QUIC], [QUIC-TLS], and [QUIC-RECOVERY]. However, the > following > differences apply in version 2." This feels like a fragment / truncated > paragraph - perhaps there is a better way to word this (like "The > remainder of > this section lists the differences", or perhaps just changing the final > period > to a colon would help. > > Section 3.1: > "The Version field of long headers is 0x709a50c4." and "initial_salt = > 0xa707.... ", "secret = 0x3425c20cf..." -- it seems like it would be > friendly > to the reader to point at how this was derived (otherwise someone is going > to > assume something like that there have already been 1889161411 prior > versions > :-)). "It's to prevent ossification / grease" describes *why*, but not > *how*. > I'd thought I'd seen some useful text in some other draft/document that > could > be stolen, but perhaps it was just in a presentation... Especially when > there > are things like salts and magic security parameters, providing some sort of > explanation helps avoid the "that was chosen by TLA to make <insert > hand-wavy > attack> easier" conspiracy... > > > >
