I reviewed this short draft and it's clear and ready. I have two minor questions but nothing that holds up the draft, nor necessarily needs any changes.
The draft has a 7 day limit to remember the transport parameter. Is there a reason for this specific value or is that a rather random value? The draft says rather late that new extensions using the QUIC bit can be negotiated without using the grease_quic_bit transport parameter. While reading the previous text though I was mostly wondering why I would want negotiate my new parameter in parallel to the grease_quic_bit transport parameter. Is that meant as a failback kind of thing? If the new extension is not support I might be able to at least grease? For me these things seems rather orthogonal. But if that is meant as a fallback, it might be good to say that explicitly. Mirja On 22.10.21, 01:20, "QUIC on behalf of Matt Joras" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Hello all, This email announces the WGLC of the latest QUIC grease bit draft[1]. This document has not changed in some time; the chairs and the author believe it to be finished. This last call will run through November 4th. Please email any issues to the list or file them on Github[2]. Thanks, Matt & Lucas QUIC WG Chairs [1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-01.html [2] https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=99184969-c683706c-991809f2-86959e472243-90b9d64ea0239e5c&q=1&e=74a00e9a-2c84-4867-bc2e-1b1536fd3fcf&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fquicwg%2Fquic-bit-grease%2Fissues
