Hi Éric, Thanks for the review. I've captured your comments as issues on the QUIC WG GItHub repository. Links to each are provided as in-line responses.
(I got your name correct on these one :-) ) On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:30 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-quic-invariants-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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-invariants/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. I find the idea of having an > 'invariant' document interesting. > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated). > > I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > == COMMENTS == > > Should the use of UDP transport be also an invariant ? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4546 > -- Abstract -- > I have hard time to reconciliate "...that are expected to remain > unchanged..." > with the intended status of standards track... and later with the sentence > "A > protocol that does not conform to the properties described in this > document is > not QUIC" in section 5.4. > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4547 > -- Section 1 -- > Are we really sure that QUIC will always between TWO endpoints ? I.e., no > multicast at all ? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4548 > -- Section 3 -- > I second Barry's point, the presence of "This document uses terms and > notational conventions from [QUIC-TRANSPORT]." renders QUIC-TRANSPORT as a > normative reference > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4550 > -- Section 4 -- > Isn't this section somehow redundant as the last paragraph of section 3 > states > "This document uses ... notational conventions from [QUIC-TRANSPORT]". > > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4551 Cheers Lucas On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs
