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 10:51 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-quic-transport-33: Yes > > 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-transport/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you to the WG and implementation community for this document. > > ** Section 3. Per “The state machines shown in this section are largely > informative ”, why the qualifier of “largely”? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4564 > ** Section 8.1. Per “Servers SHOULD ensure that tokens sent in Retry > packets > are only accepted for a short time”, is there any guidance on what a short > time > is here? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4565 > ** Section 21.5. Per “QUIC servers SHOULD NOT be deployed in networks that > also have inadequately secured UDP endpoints”, I was wondering if this > caution > is a realistic. > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4566 Cheers, Lucas On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs
