Thank you David, this was a QUIC reply ;-) (ok, old joke) Still unclear to me about the section 4 comment though but it is non-blocking
Thanks again for the changes and your reply -éric From: iesg <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of David Schinazi <dschinazi.i...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 25 October 2022 at 19:31 To: Eric Vyncke <evyn...@cisco.com> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiat...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiat...@ietf.org>, "quic-cha...@ietf.org" <quic-cha...@ietf.org>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>, "matt.jo...@gmail.com" <matt.jo...@gmail.com>, "pspa...@isc.org" <pspa...@isc.org> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12: (with COMMENT) Hi Éric, and thank you for your review. Responses inline. David On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 11:44 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12: No Objection ## COMMENTS ### Section 2 In `the versions are compatible` what is meant by 'compatible' ? Identical version ? Some clarity early in the document will help the reader without waiting the section 2.2. Added a reference to 2.2: https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/d45e03bc821775266f3b70985506957eb7cafdc6 ### Section 11 As the "TCP" reference is only used in a note in section 1.2, it should probably be an informative reference. Sure, made it informative. https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/344ba60a6366a6d119578c76a8a924b66730fd22 ### Section 4 ``` For QUIC version 1, version negotiation errors are signaled using a transport error of type VERSION_NEGOTIATION_ERROR; see Section 10.2. ``` Just wondering how an already deployed QUIC version 1 implementation that was not updated will know how to send this error type as it is only specified by the document in 2022... I am sure that I miss something else I would have balloted a DISCUSS. An implementation of QUIC that does not support this version negotiation extension will not send these errors. There is no concept of version negotiation error in the QUIC v1 RFCs. ### Section 5 Just to write my appreciation of this section that takes deployment in consideration. Good idea! Thank you! ### Section 7.2 Same explanations about the use of "SHOULD" will probably be welcome by implementers. Added an explanation https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/commit/7ff7a8d044559b157b0fac15ddf54a7db44f0234
