Thanks Roman for the review. Responses inline. David On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:41 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote:
> Roman Danyliw 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 to Joey Salazar for the SECDIR review. > > ** Section 4. > Clients MUST ignore any received Version Negotiation packets that > contain the version that they initially attempted. > > Shouldn’t this read “… that contain _any of the versions_ that they > initially > attempted” since multiple versions may have been previously offered? > This only applies to the first version, because any subsequent version is covered by the MUST in the next sentence. That said, to reduce confusion I've tweaked the wording to use the "original version" term that we clearly define in s1.2. https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/85d2a7658bca23083f1225d604a1454c803184a0 ** Section 5. Editorial. The text defined “Fully-Deployed Versions” in > this > section but uses it first in Section 4. > Agreed. Fixed by adding a forward reference: https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/774e4718dff9e620128f2e854b8203623925a1c9
