Hi Roman, 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.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:36 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-quic-recovery-33: 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-recovery/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks to Derrell Piper for the SECDIR review. > > ** Section 3. Per “The encryption level indicates the packet number > space, as > described in [QUIC-TRANSPORT ]”, I think that reference here is Section 4.* > from [QUIC-TLS] as I can’t find a mapping between PNS and encryption > levels as > discussed here in [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4555 Cheers, Lucas On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs
