Hi Warren, Thanks for your comment. It's unfortunate that some folks have a mental association from "datagram" to "UDP", but at the end of the day that's not necessarily the target audience. This document is aimed at implementers of QUIC who do know top-of-mind that you can build a reliable transport over UDP, and have unreliable transmission outside of UDP. I understand what you're trying to accomplish with your proposed text, but unfortunately I suspect that'll introduce more confusion, because in some cases you can tunnel UDP inside QUIC datagrams.
Thanks for the reminder about the opsdir review, I just replied to that. Cheers, David On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 11:31 AM Warren Kumari via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-quic-datagram-08: No Objection > > 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Something that would make this document *much* more understandable, > especially > for those of us who are not so bright, is that QUIC datagrams are not just > QUIC > carrying UDP. The document says: "In the past, these applications have > built > directly upon UDP [RFC0768] as a transport, and have often added security > with > DTLS [RFC6347]. Extending QUIC to support transmitting unreliable > application > data provides another option for secure datagrams, with the added benefit > of > sharing the cryptographic and authentication context used for reliable > streams." > > Even though I knew that this isn't just tunneling UDP over QUIC, the above > description and use of the term "datagram" (which has become synonymous > with > UDP) keeps making me forget that. I don't have any suggested text, but > something like a "Note: This is a QUIC transport to carry unreliable data > natively, and does not encapsulate UDP packets" or something. > > Also, much thanks to Jürgen Schönwälder for his OpsDir review of -07, and > the > authors for addressing the comments. > > I wanted to confirm that the authors had seen that Jürgen followed up with > an > additional review of -08 (much thanks Jürgen!) at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-quic-datagram-08-opsdir-telechat-schoenwaelder-2022-01-31/ > > > >
