Hi Qin, thank you for your comments, responses inline. Note to other WG members: PR 127 is completely editorial but 128 does add some RFC 2119 language that was previously implicit, please double-check my work.
Thanks, David On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:48 AM Qin Wu via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > Minor Issues: 1. Section 4 introduce verson downgrade term [Qin]What the version > downgrade is? I > feel confused, does it mean when I currently use new version, I should not > fall > back to the old version? Can you explain how version downgrade is different > from version incompatible? It will be great to give a definition of version > downgrade in the first place or provide an example to explain it? It's a pretty common term of art in versioned protocols but I've defined it in Section 4. https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/127 > 2. Section 9 > said: " The requirement that versions not be assumed compatible mitigates > the > possibility of cross-protocol attacks, but more analysis is still needed > here." > [Qin] It looks this paragraph is incomplete, what else analysis should we > provide to make this paragraph complete? The paragraph is complete. It acknowledges the potential for cross-protocol attacks and encourages more research in this area. > 3. Section 10 [Qin]: I am not clear > why not request permanent allocation of a codepoint in the 0-63 range > directly > in this document. In my understanding, provisional codepoint can be > requested > without any dependent document? e.g., Each vendor can request IANA for > Vendor > specific range. Secondly, if replacing provisional codepoint with permanent > allocation, requires make bis for this document, I don't think it is > reasonable. The IANA section means that when the IESG approves the document, we will modify the document to select a permanent 0-63 codepoint before or during AUTH48. There will be no need for a bis document. > Nits: 1. Section 2 said: " For instance, if the client initiates a > connection with version A and the server starts incompatible version > negotiation and the client then initiates a new connection with .... " > [Qin]Can > the client starts incompatible version negotiation? if not, I think we > should > call this out, e.g., using RFC2119 language. Good catch, this was an implicit assumption. I made it explicit with 2119 text: https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/128 > 2. Section 2, last paragraph [Qin] > This paragraph is a little bit vague to me, how do we define not fully > support? > e.g., the server can interpret version A, B,C, but the server only fully > implements version A,B, regarding version C, the server can read this > version, > but can not use this version, in other words, it is partially implemented, > is > my understanding correct? Your understanding is correct. Do you have suggestions for better wording? > 3.Section 2.1 the new term "offered version" [Qin] > Can you add one definition of offered versions in section 1.2, terminology > section? To be honest, I still not clear how offered version is different > from > negotiated version? Also I suggest to add definitions of accepted version, > deployed version as well in section 1.2? Too many terminologies, hard to > track > them in the first place. Those terms are introduced with a reference to Section 5 that very clearly defines them. Duplicating those definitions in Section 1.2 would make the document less clear in my opinion. > 4. Section 6 said: " it is possible for some > application layer protocols to not be able to run over some of the offered > compatible versions. " [Qin]I believe compatible versions is not > pertaining to > any application layer protocol, if yes, > s/compatible versions/compatible QUIC versions > Compatible versions are defined as referring to QUIC versions. My apologies but I think the existing text is clearer. 5.Section 7.1 said: > "For example, that could be accomplished by having the server send a Retry > packet in the original > version first thereby validating the client's IP address before" > [Qin] Is Version first Version 1? If the answer is yes, please be > consistent > and keep using > either of them instead of inter-exchange to use them. > s/version first/version 1 > You're misunderstanding this sentence, I've moved the word first to avoid the confusion: https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/e1ca5b749e2ea2347db7d8353bc2f9cc770ae354
