Hi Murray, Thanks for the review. I've created GitHub issue(s) to track each comment on the QUIC WG repository, see the URL(s) in line.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:33 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-quic-qpack-20: 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-qpack/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Kudos on all the hard work that clearly went into this. Makes our job > easy, > and this was also very educational. > > Some minor suggestions: > > In Section 2.1.3, I suggest "SHOULD avoid writing" ought to be "SHOULD NOT > write". (For that matter, I don't know why this isn't a MUST NOT.) > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4797 > In Section 2.2.1: > > While blocked, encoded field section data SHOULD remain in the > blocked stream's flow control window. > > Since SHOULD grants me a choice, why might I decide not to do what it says > here? Or should this be MUST? > https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4798 Cheers Lucas On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs
