On 04/08/2025 17:54, Lucas Pardue wrote:
Hi,
Please see responses in line
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025, at 17:19, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
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.
It is the WG chairs opinion we should not be touching #2 at all. The
WG understands them, adding more details etc. to the charter is
starting a snowball of completely tangential refinement questions that
provide no value. Even worse, it adds risk that a change invalidates
something already understood and leaves the WG subject to something it
did not agree to.
The QUIC WG removed dated milestones a couple of years
ago. draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers is waiting for more implementation
experience.
Please see RFC 9308 - "Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol" -
for a document that describes considerations for application protocol
developers.
>
> # 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.
Yes this will happen; the blocker is approving the charter. Slowing
down rechartering by relitigating unrelated and tangential items (see
above) is delaying this.
>
> # 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.
This is wrong. The working group is called the HTTP Working Group. You
are conflating the working group with its acronym. The change needs to
be rolled back to restore the original text.
Reverted as requested.
>
> ## 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.
We put a lot of thought and review into the text related to congestion
control during the last recharter. That text has successfully met its
goal about the scope of work of the QUIC WG. It should definately not
be moved. I don't even think wordsmithing it is a good use of time.
I expect the revised text in the charter proposal is still acceptable to
the WG. The change was very minor.
> 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
<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
Best wishes,
Gorry
