Hi Roman,
All but one comment reflected in this PR:
https://github.com/quicwg/quic-v2/pull/81
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:45 AM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> ** Section 3.3.2. In the spirit of this document being an example of the
> “the
> minimum set of changes necessary to specify a new QUIC version”, is the
> naming
> convention of the HKDF labels here what should be used in the future?
> Specifically “quicv {version number} key”, “quicv{version number} iv”, etc.
>
It is required for each version to change the labels.
QUICv2 is a colloquial name, not the wire-image version number, so I'm not
sure what example this would be setting in this regard. There is certainly
no normative language in this doc about what future versions have to do;
that text is in the Version Negotiation doc or RFC9000/9001.
If you have suggested text, I'm happy to consider it.
