Thanks Med,
Please see comments in-line.
On 04/08/2025 16:19, Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker wrote:
Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-quic-03-02: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-quic/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I used [1] to review the charter changes. Please find below some comments:
# Any plan to update the deployment considerations?
As I see item#2 touched as well, I have the following questions:
## I wonder whether the WG has considered to do a refresh of RFC 9312 to
reflect more deployment experience.
## The load-balancer item was promised to be sent to the IESG back to 2021. Are
there specific issues with this spec? I see the doc is still active, wonder
whether there is a target publication date for this one?
## Given the various foo-over-QUIC out there, developing some guidance for the
authors of such documents would be helpful. Not sure if that was considered by
the WG.
[GF]: I'll let the working group chairs comment on the above.
# Consider adding a milestone for the new Item#4, in particular.
[GF]: I expect milestones will be added by the Chairs once a draft is
adopted.
# nits
## HTTP WG was concluded; consider updating to httpbi
CURRENT:
The QUIC WG originated HTTP/3, the mapping of HTTP to QUIC, and the
QPACK header compression scheme. These specifications are now
maintained in the HTTP WG.
[GF]:Good point - charter updated.
## Better flow
I would move this text to be under item#3, with some minor edits:
OLD:
Defining new congestion control schemes is explicitly out of scope for
the WG. However, new QUIC extensions that support development and
experimentation with new congestion control schemes may fall under the
third work area.
NEW:
Defining new congestion control schemes is explicitly out of scope for
the WG. However, new QUIC extensions that support development and
experimentation with new congestion control schemes is within scope.
[GF]: I updated this directly, but did not move it, since this is about
scoping and this work "may" be within scope, although if it fits better
in ccwg (or tsvwg) then it shall be taken as work there.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Med
[1]
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-quic%2Fwithmilestones-03.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-quic%2Fwithmilestones-03-02.txt&difftype=--hwdiff
Thanks again,
Gorry
