Hi Eric, thanks for your review! See two comments inline marked with [MK].
Mirja On 05.02.26, 15:45, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-quic-multipath-19: 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/ <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-multipath/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-multipath/> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work done in this document. Special thanks to Antoine Fressancourt, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request and on short notice), please consider this int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-quic-multipath-19-intdir-telechat-fressancourt-2026-02-04/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-quic-multipath-19-intdir-telechat-fressancourt-2026-02-04/> In addition to Antoine's review, and in the light of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/>, I noted some SHOULD (e.g., sections 2.3, 2.5) that are without the required guidance per the IESG statement (in short, why not a MUST?). [MK] The following sentence in 2.3 or in case of 2.5 paragraph actually explain why these are SHOULDs. In 2.5 it more explains what happens if you don't follow the SHOULD but I think that is still okay because in both cases these things are not enforceable and don't break the protocol (therefore no MUSTs) but you need to be aware of the consequences. Let me also expression my surprise (knowing many of the authors) that section 5.2 uses IPv4 only example... On this topic, a dual-stack example would have been nice (especially, as Wi-Fi is often IPv4-only and 3GPP/cellular is often IPv6-enable or IPv6-only). [MK] We discussed this (as it was also flagged by the id-nits) but decided it not worth to duplicate the whole examples as this example only works within one address family (where you migrate to an existing 4-tuple). I guess the only thing we could do it use IPv6 addresses instead. But does that make really a big difference?
