Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-quic-datagram-08: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-datagram/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. It can indeed be very useful notably for the VPN case. Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (probably easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Lucas Pardue for the shepherd's write-up including the section about the WG consensus even if I had appreciated a justification for the PS status rather than an assertion. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## Section 3 Does it make any sense to have max_datagram_frame_size <= 20 ? (IPv4 header size) ## Section 4 The first paragraph with the binary notation is not easy to parse. I really prefer the first paragraph of section 19.3 of RFC 9000. ## Section 5.1 I find the following text hard contradicting the first paragraph of section 5: QUIC implementations SHOULD present an API to applications to assign relative priorities to DATAGRAM frames with respect to each other and to QUIC streams.
