Thanks! On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 12:30 PM James <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin, > > Thanks for clarifying, and no I'm not going to insist. > > ~ J > > > On 10 Oct 2022, at 20:58, Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > James, > > > > Thanks for the review! > > > > I honestly don't think it's a big deal either way -- I'll add either > normative word if you insist, but I don't think a requirement is necessary > here and it flows a bit better this way in my opinion. "ignore" is > obviously a pretty loose word to use -- it would certainly be OK for a > client to log it or something. > > > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 7:43 AM James Gruessing via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: James Gruessing > > Review result: Ready > > > > This is my review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05 as part of ART Last Call > review. > > > > Overall this is a well written document that is clear in its writing, > and I > > have only one minor point of clarification. > > > > Section 4.1 - "The client ignores Retry packets using other versions." - > is > > this supposed to be a normative phrase, i.e. "The client SHOULD/MUST > ignore > > Retry packets"? This sentence feels out of place in a paragraph with > normative > > text defining other requirements. Or is this a behaviour defined in VN > that I > > have missed? > > > > > >
