Hi Mirja, thank you for your review. Responses inline. David On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 3:14 PM Mirja Kuehlewind < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > > > I reviewed the version negotiation draft and I think it’s ready to proceed. > > > > I proposed one PR with a small clarification that I thought could be > helpful and I have one comment and a question, which I thought might be > faster to address by mail, so here it comes: > Thanks, we've merged your PR. > My comment/proposal: > > I would find a terminology section actually helpful in order to have all > three terms defined at the same place: "original version", "client's chosen > version", and “negotiated version”. I had to read this multiple time to be > fully clear about the differences. Also another term one could maybe > explicitly define is “first flight”. This term is used in RFC9000 but in > the context of one specific version is probably more clear. > That makes sense. I wrote this up as a PR, please review: https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/107 Any my question: > > The Chosen version field in section 3 is defined the following way: > > > > “The version that the sender has chosen to use for this connection. In > most cases, this field will be equal to the value of the Version field in > the long header that carries this data.” > > > > Why is this saying in most cases? What are the cases when this would not > be equal? Or is this cover potential different behavior of future version? > Would be could to clarify this! > The latter, I've clarified in this PR: https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/108 Mirja > > > > > > > > *From: *QUIC <[email protected]> on behalf of David Schinazi < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, 13. April 2022 at 11:18 > *To: *Matt Joras <[email protected]> > *Cc: *IETF QUIC WG <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Working Group Last Call: QUIC Version Negotiation > > > > Thank you Matt! > > > > The editors will strive to address editorial comments as they come in. > > To help us with that process, I recommend that everyone review the latest > editor's copy available here: > > > https://quicwg.org/version-negotiation/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation.html > <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-b5772e3ae3fc7520&q=1&e=dd2ebf17-6afb-4150-ba3e-b9ea85018917&u=https%3A%2F%2Fquicwg.org%2Fversion-negotiation%2Fdraft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation.html> > > That way you'll review the latest document with improvements made during > WGLC. > > > > Thanks, > > David > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:25 PM Matt Joras <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > This email announces the WGLC of the latest QUIC version negotiation > draft[1]. This document has seen significant work and thanks to persistent > effort of the authors and other contributors the design and editorial > content has stabilized. The chairs and authors believe it is ready for a > last call. There are multiple interoperating implementations for compatible > version negotiation, and downgrade prevention has been deployed at scale. > This last call will run through April 26th. Please email any issues to the > list or file them on Github[2]. > > Thanks, > Matt & Lucas > QUIC WG Chairs > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation/ > > [2] https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation > <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-e2f7a157cd4462af&q=1&e=dd2ebf17-6afb-4150-ba3e-b9ea85018917&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fquicwg%2Fversion-negotiation> > >
