Hi Petr, thank you for your review.
I prefer to keep the current ordering of the document, but I've added a
reference to the definition of transport parameters as you suggested:
https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/b07f813b0f4bedf874d2b6f50175d6a5de183560
David

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 1:54 AM Petr Špaček via Datatracker <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Petr Špaček
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> The document contains no direct or indirect reference to the DNS.
>
> I'm unfamiliar with QUIC protocol details and thus not qualified to make
> detailed comments on the protocol. On the surface, it looks good.
>
> The document is clearly motivated, and the proposed mechanism's description
> contains helpful examples throughout the whole document.
>
> A list of nits follows, very likely as a matter of personal taste - feel
> free
> to ignore:
>
> >From my perspective, the document overuses forward references to itself,
> which
> makes it harder to follow.
>
> a) Section 8 Special Handling for QUIC Version 1
> It would be nice if this section were mentioned in the beginning. For a
> while,
> I thought the proposed protocol could not work because I did not notice
> special
> handling in the Table of contents. I would put it forwarding, possibly as a
> subsection of the Version Information section.
>
> b) The first mention of "transport parameter" could use a reference to RFC
> 9000
> sec. 7.4 to make it easier for the reader.
>
> c) Also, section 5.  Server Deployments of QUIC forward could appear
> earlier,
> possibly as a subsection of the Version Information section.
>
> For me personally more logical text flow would be:
>
>    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>    3.  Version Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
>       8.  Special Handling for QUIC Version 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
>       5.  Server Deployments of QUIC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
>    2.  Version Negotiation Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
>    4.  Version Downgrade Prevention  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
>
> With enough jumping back and forth, the document makes sense, so again,
> feel
> free to ignore me.
>
>
>

Reply via email to