Hi Lars On Mon, Oct 6, 2025, at 16:51, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, > > On Oct 6, 2025, at 17:08, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > > There were comments from individuals such as Martin Duke and Lars Eggert > > that I, as a chair, interpret to mean that they could live with a > > standards-track document (i.e. not calling for an experimental document) if > > it would make some editorial changes. For instance clarify and reinforce > > the foundational capabilities of the extension, and what things specific > > deployments or use cases would need to consider, while avoiding normative > > references on something that is a research topic. I believe the document > > updates made and captured in (at the time of writing) draft 16 address > > these requests. Do you think there are further changes needed? > > I was thinking I was alone in my dissent, but then Ian emailed, and I got > triggered :-) > > I just briefly rechecked -16: > > The title is still very generic, implying that this is a (*the*?) multipath > extension for QUIC. Same in the abstract. > > The last three paragraphs of the introduction then have some text that was > maybe added to address the raised concern, i.e., that this doc specifies > extensions for *managing multiple paths* for QUIC connection. But that that > alone is not resulting in "multipath QUIC", i.e., an IETF standard for how > you actually safely and effectively utilize those multiple paths at the same > time. I think the document needs to be much more blunt in stating that caveat > ("We give you paths. We don't tell you how to use them. This is a required > piece of multipath QUIC, but not a complete standard.") > > I hope this makes my concern a bit clearer. It's not that I disagree that > what the doc normativley describes isn't ready for PS, it's that the doc is > titled and introduced as if that was all the pieces needed for multipath QUIC > when that's not the case. > > Proposal: Title change to "Managing multiple paths for a QUIC connection". > Abstract and introduction accurately summarize standardized content. Thank you, this was very helpful.
I've created a GitHub issue to track further discussion on this matter. Cheers Lucas > > Thanks, > Lars > > > > *Attachments:* > • signature.asc
