I have not read either draft in its entirety recently, but I've read all the recent issues and most subsequent PRs.
There is currently a huge amount of activity in the manageability draft and a decent amount in applicability. These drafts didn't receive this level of review previously, partially because the other drafts were still changing. I don't think these changes will be huge, but they are likely to take a few weeks to a month and I would prefer another draft and WGLC after the changes are complete. Thanks, Ian On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 10:12 PM Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I've read reviewed both of these drafts. > > I think that the applicability draft is good. It's clear and accurate. > Having followed the changes there, what comes out of WGLC should be in an > acceptable state for requesting publication. > > I would like to see another version of the manageability draft before > approving it. > > Most of the problems are "just" editorial, but there were numerous factual > inaccuracies that directly relate to the suggestions being made. I think > that I caught most of those things that were obviously wrong with issues, > but I might have missed a few things. > > The biggest concern I have is with the way that the draft is not always > clear about the conditions of statements it makes. There are several > critical distinctions that need to be kept very clear in writing something > like this and this is excellent in some areas, but inconsistently applied. > The things that I think are important to keep clear always are: > > 1. The distinction between the properties of version 1 of QUIC and things > that apply to all versions of QUIC. I think that this could be achieved by > stating up front that text only refers to version 1, but also repeating > "version 1" to avoid ambiguity, even more than strictly necessary. > Explicitly calling out those few cases where invariant properties are being > discussed (which is more often than might be obvious) seems sensible. > > 2. The distinction between actions taken unilaterally by path elements and > actions taken by entities that cooperate with QUIC endpoints in performing > their functions. Here, most of the document is written from the > perspective of not requiring cooperation. That is stated up front[*], but > the frequent digressions to talk about endpoint cooperation means that it > is worth being extra clear, even to the point of redundancy. > > [*] The draft says on-path observer in Section 3, but many of the actions > in Section 4 involve intervention. > > I don't have editorial pull requests, because I have to prioritize other > work. I think that this requires more work than I can commit to doing > within the WGLC period. > > Cheers, > Martin > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021, at 05:12, Matt Joras wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Now that the base drafts are cruising down the road to RFC the Chairs > > and Editors believe it's time to proceed with the standardization of > > the ops drafts. Therefore, this email announces a Working Group Last > > Call (WGLC) for the following QUIC documents: > > > > * Manageability of the QUIC Transport Protocol > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-manageability-09 > > * Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-applicability-09 > > > > The WGLC will run for two weeks, ending on 18 February 2021. > > > > Please review the documents above and open issues for your review > > comments in our repository at https://github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts. You > > may also send comments to [email protected]. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Lars, Lucas, Matt > > QUIC WG Chairs > >
