Last Call Review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05
review-ietf-quic-v2-05-artart-lc-gruessing-2022-10-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-quic-v2
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2022-10-11
Requested 2022-09-27
Authors Martin Duke
I-D last updated 2022-10-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -05 by James Gruessing (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Bo Wu (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -05 by Vladimír Čunát (diff)
Assignment Reviewer James Gruessing
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-quic-v2-05-artart-lc-gruessing-2022-10-09
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/QoxT3FUTyZmtLDZOrKGDj8NWWi0
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-10-09
review-ietf-quic-v2-05-artart-lc-gruessing-2022-10-09-00
This is my review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05 as part of ART Last Call review.

Overall this is a well written document that is clear in its writing, and I
have only one minor point of clarification.

Section 4.1 - "The client ignores Retry packets using other versions." - is
this supposed to be a normative phrase, i.e. "The client SHOULD/MUST ignore
Retry packets"? This sentence feels out of place in a paragraph with normative
text defining other requirements. Or is this a behaviour defined in VN that I
have missed?