Last Call Review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05
review-ietf-quic-v2-05-dnsdir-lc-cunat-2022-10-12-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-quic-v2 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | DNS Directorate (dnsdir) | |
Deadline | 2022-10-11 | |
Requested | 2022-09-27 | |
Authors | Martin Duke | |
I-D last updated | 2022-10-12 | |
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 | Vladimír Čunát |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-quic-v2 by DNS Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/4au5YlD-cP80-UMa5WkioeV9DVk | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2022-10-12 |
review-ietf-quic-v2-05-dnsdir-lc-cunat-2022-10-12-00
I see nothing in the draft affecting DNS specifically (though DoQ and DoH/3 exist). I noticed one point that would be nice to clarify. I see > QUIC version 2 endpoints MUST implement the QUIC version 1 but on the other hand also > Endpoints that support version 2 might continue support for version 1 and in my eyes these clash, as on protocol level I don't think it's possible to implement but not support a version, though I'm not very knowledgeable about QUIC details in particular. (On SW level that makes sense, but that's not what the RFC is about.)