Compatible Version Negotiation for QUIC
draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-14
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-05-30
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2023-02-23
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2023-01-13
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2022-12-19
|
14 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-14.txt |
2022-12-19
|
14 | David Schinazi | New version approved |
2022-12-19
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2022-12-19
|
14 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-12-19
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2022-12-16
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2022-12-16
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2022-12-16
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2022-12-15
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
2022-11-17
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
2022-11-10
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2022-11-10
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2022-11-10
|
13 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2022-11-10
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2022-11-10
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2022-11-10
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2022-11-10
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2022-11-10
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-11-10
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement sent |
2022-11-10
|
13 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2022-11-06
|
13 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2022-11-06
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-11-06
|
13 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-13.txt |
2022-11-06
|
13 | David Schinazi | New version approved |
2022-11-06
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2022-11-06
|
13 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-27
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Eric Rescorla, David Schinazi (IESG state changed) |
2022-10-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2022-10-27
|
12 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2022-10-26
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Joey Salazar for the SECDIR review. ** Section 4. Clients MUST ignore any received Version Negotiation packets that … [Ballot comment] Thank you to Joey Salazar for the SECDIR review. ** Section 4. Clients MUST ignore any received Version Negotiation packets that contain the version that they initially attempted. Shouldn’t this read “… that contain _any of the versions_ that they initially attempted” since multiple versions may have been previously offered? ** Section 5. Editorial. The text defined “Fully-Deployed Versions” in this section but uses it first in Section 4. |
2022-10-26
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2022-10-26
|
12 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document -- in addition to providing a useful / important capability, it's also surprisingly readable and understandable, even by … [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document -- in addition to providing a useful / important capability, it's also surprisingly readable and understandable, even by someone not deeply knowledgable about QUIC / QUIC startup. This is especially impressive for a topic like this... I'd also like to thank the OpsDir reviewer (Qin Wu) for the helpful review, and the authors for addressing the comments. |
2022-10-26
|
12 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2022-10-26
|
12 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12 CC @larseggert Thanks to Robert Sparks for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/q4nfiA-lk3-dpm66IdFh8oGUOr0). … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12 CC @larseggert Thanks to Robert Sparks for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/q4nfiA-lk3-dpm66IdFh8oGUOr0). ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Grammar/style #### Section 1, paragraph 2 ``` al versions are broadly similar to the the previous version. This specificat ^^^^^^^ ``` Possible typo: you repeated a word. #### Section 4, paragraph 5 ``` ated version. If the client would have selected a different version, the cli ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Did you mean "had selected"? ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2022-10-26
|
12 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2022-10-25
|
12 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thanks for a clear and readable, albeit dense, spec. One nit: s/the the/the/ |
2022-10-25
|
12 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2022-10-25
|
12 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2022-10-24
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Matt Joras for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *even* if the justification of the intended status is rather weak. Please note that Petr Špaček is the DNS directorate reviewer (at the chairs' request) and you may want to consider his review as well (and I have read the email dialogue with David): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/swTm6QGRLQqnsVC87asXiedii9s/ I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## 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. ### Section 11 As the "TCP" reference is only used in a note in section 1.2, it should probably be an informative reference. ### 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. ### Section 5 Just to write my appreciation of this section that takes deployment in consideration. Good idea! ### Section 7.2 Same explanations about the use of "SHOULD" will probably be welcome by implementers. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments |
2022-10-24
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2022-10-24
|
12 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2022-10-24
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] This document updates rfc8999, which points at rfc9000 "for a more thorough description of how an endpoint that supports QUIC version 1 … [Ballot comment] This document updates rfc8999, which points at rfc9000 "for a more thorough description of how an endpoint that supports QUIC version 1 generates and consumes a Version Negotiation packet". There is also text in §4 that seems to modify how a QUIC version 1 endpoint behaves. Should rfc9000 also be updated? |
2022-10-24
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2022-10-24
|
12 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Thank you for another clear and well written document. One minor comment: (1) p 9, sec 3. Version Information … [Ballot comment] Thank you for another clear and well written document. One minor comment: (1) p 9, sec 3. Version Information Client-Sent Available Versions: When sent by a client, the Available Versions field lists all the versions that this first flight is compatible with, ordered by descending preference. Note that the version in the Chosen Version field MUST be included in this list to allow the client to communicate the chosen version's preference. Note that this preference is only advisory, servers MAY choose to use their own preference instead. Server-Sent Available Versions: When sent by a server, the Available Versions field lists all the Fully-Deployed Versions of this server deployment, see Section 5. Note that the version in the Chosen Version field is not necessarily included in this list, because the server operator could be in the process of removing support for this version. For the same reason, the Available Versions field MAY be empty. It might be helpful to explicitly indicate whether the sever-sent available versions are ordered (as per the client), or unordered. I presume that it is latter because it isn't stated, but it may improve readability of the document if this was explicit. Regards, Rob // Thank to Qin for OPSDIR review. |
2022-10-24
|
12 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-10-27 |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot has been issued |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Created "Approve" ballot |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot writeup was changed |
2022-10-19
|
12 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12.txt |
2022-10-19
|
12 | David Schinazi | New version approved |
2022-10-19
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2022-10-19
|
12 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-11
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2022-10-11
|
11 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-11.txt |
2022-10-11
|
11 | David Schinazi | New version approved |
2022-10-11
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2022-10-11
|
11 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-11
|
10 | Petr Špaček | Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Petr Špaček. Sent review to list. |
2022-10-11
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2022-10-10
|
10 | Jim Reid | Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Petr Špaček |
2022-10-10
|
10 | Jim Reid | Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Petr Špaček |
2022-10-10
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2022-10-10
|
10 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the QUIC Transport Parameters registry on the QUIC registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic/ There is an existing, provisional registration as follows: Value: 0xFF73DB Parameter Name: version_information Status: provisional In its place a new registration will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Parameter Name: version_information Status: permanent Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Date: [ TBD-at-registration ] Change Controller: IETF Contact: [QUIC_WG] Notes: The new registration will come from the 0-63 range. The earlier 0xFF73DB registration will be removed. Second, in the QUIC Transport Error Codes registry also on the QUIC registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic/ There is an existing, provisional registration as follows: Value: 0x53F8 Code: VERSION_NEGOTIATION_ERROR Description: Error negotiating version Status: provisional In its place a new registration will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Code: VERSION_NEGOTIATION_ERROR Description: Error negotiating version Status: permanent Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Date: [ TBD-at-registration ] Change Controller: IETF Contact: [QUIC_WG] Notes: The new registration will come from the 0-63 range. The earlier 0x53F8 registration will be removed. The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Specialist |
2022-10-08
|
10 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
2022-10-05
|
10 | Joey Salazar | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Joey Salazar. Sent review to list. |
2022-10-04
|
10 | Tim Bray | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Tim Bray. Sent review to list. |
2022-10-04
|
10 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Tim Bray |
2022-10-04
|
10 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Tim Bray |
2022-09-30
|
10 | Qin Wu | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Qin Wu. Sent review to list. |
2022-09-29
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joey Salazar |
2022-09-29
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joey Salazar |
2022-09-29
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2022-09-29
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2022-09-28
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2022-09-28
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2022-09-27
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2022-09-27
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation@ietf.org, matt.joras@gmail.com, quic-chairs@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation@ietf.org, matt.joras@gmail.com, quic-chairs@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Compatible Version Negotiation for QUIC) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the QUIC WG (quic) to consider the following document: - 'Compatible Version Negotiation for QUIC' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract QUIC does not provide a complete version negotiation mechanism but instead only provides a way for the server to indicate that the version the client chose is unacceptable. This document describes a version negotiation mechanism that allows a client and server to select a mutually supported version. Optionally, if the client's chosen version and the negotiated version share a compatible first flight format, the negotiation can take place without incurring an extra round trip. This document updates RFC 8999. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2022-09-27
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2022-09-27
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Last call was requested |
2022-09-27
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-09-27
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot writeup was generated |
2022-09-27
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2022-09-27
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Last call announcement was generated |
2022-09-27
|
10 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-10.txt |
2022-09-27
|
10 | David Schinazi | New version approved |
2022-09-27
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2022-09-27
|
10 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-13
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed) |
2022-07-13
|
09 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2022-07-11
|
09 | Lucas Pardue | Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last … Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Broad agreement. This document was widely discussed on github, the mailing list, and at multiple IETF meetings. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Given the nature of the work (versions and moving between versions) there were some philosophical questions that had to be ironed out, but ultimately the consensus was not unusually rough. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are multiple interoperating implementations which have been reported and tested through the typical form of social testing on the QUIC dev slack workspace. This includes major implementers who intend to use it in production. ### Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Normal linting. ### Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? I believe these documents are cclearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready for AD review. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, there are no disclosures to file. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) None. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Not that I can see. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. None. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? None. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document clearly identifies the registration of new values in established QUIC registries. While developed in the WG, the document has used values in the provisional range. Once the document is approved, values in the permanent range will be requested for allocation. This document, as a Proposed Standard, meets the permanent registration criteria. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A |
2022-07-11
|
09 | Lucas Pardue | Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last … Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Broad agreement. This document was widely discussed on github, the mailing list, and at multiple IETF meetings. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Given the nature of the work (versions) and the relationship with version negotiation, there were some philosophical questions that had to be ironed out, but ultimately the consensus was not unusually rough. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are multiple interoperating implementations which have been reported and tested through the typical form of social testing on the QUIC dev slack workspace. This includes major implementers who intend to use it in production. ### Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Normal linting. ### Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? I believe these documents are clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready for AD review. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, there are no disclosures to file. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) None. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Not that I can see. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. None. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? None. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document clearly identifies the registration of new a value in the QUIC versions registry. While developed in the WG, the document has used values in the provisional range. Once the document is approved, a value in the permanent range will be requested for allocation. This document, as a Proposed Standard, meets the permanent registration criteria. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A |
2022-07-11
|
09 | Lucas Pardue | Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last … Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Broad agreement. This document was widely discussed on github, the mailing list, and at multiple IETF meetings. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Given the nature of the work (versions and moving between versions) there were some philosophical questions that had to be ironed out, but ultimately the consensus was not unusually rough. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are multiple interoperating implementations which have been reported and tested through the typical form of social testing on the QUIC dev slack workspace. This includes major implementers who intend to use it in production. ### Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Normal linting. ### Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? I believe these documents are cclearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready for AD review. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, there are no disclosures to file. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) None. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Not that I can see. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. None. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? None. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document clearly identifies the registration of new values in established QUIC registries. While developed in the WG, the document has used values in the provisional range. Once the document is approved, values in the permanent range will be requested for allocation. This document, as a Proposed Standard, meets the permanent registration criteria. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A |
2022-07-11
|
09 | Lucas Pardue | Responsible AD changed to Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2022-07-11
|
09 | Lucas Pardue | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2022-07-11
|
09 | Lucas Pardue | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-07-11
|
09 | Lucas Pardue | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-07-11
|
09 | Lucas Pardue | Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last … Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Broad agreement. This document was widely discussed on github, the mailing list, and at multiple IETF meetings. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Given the nature of the work (versions and moving between versions) there were some philosophical questions that had to be ironed out, but ultimately the consensus was not unusually rough. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are multiple interoperating implementations which have been reported and tested through the typical form of social testing on the QUIC dev slack workspace. This includes major implementers who intend to use it in production. ### Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Normal linting. ### Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? I believe these documents are cclearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready for AD review. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, there are no disclosures to file. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) None. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Not that I can see. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. None. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? None. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document clearly identifies the registration of new values in established QUIC registries. While developed in the WG, the document has used values in the provisional range. Once the document is approved, values in the permanent range will be requested for allocation. This document, as a Proposed Standard, meets the permanent registration criteria. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A |
2022-07-11
|
09 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-09.txt |
2022-07-11
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-07-11
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2022-07-11
|
09 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-08
|
08 | Lucas Pardue | Notification list changed to matt.joras@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-06-08
|
08 | Lucas Pardue | Document shepherd changed to Matt Joras |
2022-06-08
|
08 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-08.txt |
2022-06-08
|
08 | David Schinazi | New version approved |
2022-06-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2022-06-08
|
08 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-01
|
07 | Lucas Pardue | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2022-04-05
|
07 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-07.txt |
2022-04-05
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-04-05
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2022-04-05
|
07 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-08
|
06 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-06.txt |
2022-03-08
|
06 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
2021-10-25
|
05 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-05.txt |
2021-10-25
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-25
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2021-10-25
|
05 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-25
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2021-10-25
|
05 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-25
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2021-10-25
|
05 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-05-26
|
04 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-04.txt |
2021-05-26
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-05-26
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2021-05-26
|
04 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-04
|
03 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-03.txt |
2021-02-04
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-04
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2021-02-04
|
03 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-02
|
02 | Eric Rescorla | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-02.txt |
2020-11-02
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-11-02
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rescorla , David Schinazi |
2020-11-02
|
02 | Eric Rescorla | Uploaded new revision |
2020-08-31
|
01 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-01.txt |
2020-08-31
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-08-31
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Schinazi , Eric Rescorla |
2020-08-31
|
01 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2020-08-31
|
01 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |
2020-08-29
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-03-09
|
00 | Lars Eggert | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2020-03-09
|
00 | Lars Eggert | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2020-02-26
|
00 | David Schinazi | This document now replaces draft-schinazi-quic-version-negotiation instead of None |
2020-02-26
|
00 | David Schinazi | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-00.txt |
2020-02-26
|
00 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: David Schinazi) |
2020-02-26
|
00 | David Schinazi | Uploaded new revision |