Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-quic-datagram-07
review-ietf-quic-datagram-07-secdir-lc-wallace-2021-12-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-quic-datagram
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2021-12-24
Requested 2021-12-10
Authors Tommy Pauly , Eric Kinnear , David Schinazi
I-D last updated 2021-12-22
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carl Wallace
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-quic-datagram by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/8aR-G1dRP55rqmJirA7DRAdLqc4
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-12-22
review-ietf-quic-datagram-07-secdir-lc-wallace-2021-12-22-00
This is a well written document. My only comments are likely due to my lack of
familiarity with QUIC.

1) Section 5 states "this frame SHOULD be sent as soon as possible, and MAY be
coalesced with other frames." It was not clear to me how this squared with
Section 4's "if this bit is set to 0, the Length field is absent and the
Datagram Data field extends to the end of the packet." Should the MAY be other
packets instead of frames? Or is at most one datagram frame with no length
present permitted in a packet, with it being last?

2) Section 3 may benefit from including words a la section 4.6.2 of RFC 9001
regarding resetting state when max_datagram_frame_size is rejected. On first
read, it was not clear to me why this value did not latch.