Subject: Murray Kucherawy's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-qpack-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:33:03 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-qpack-20: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-qpack/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kudos on all the hard work that clearly went into this.  Makes our job easy,
and this was also very educational.

Some minor suggestions:

In Section 2.1.3, I suggest "SHOULD avoid writing" ought to be "SHOULD NOT
write". (For that matter, I don't know why this isn't a MUST NOT.)

In Section 2.2.1:

   While blocked, encoded field section data SHOULD remain in the
   blocked stream's flow control window.

Since SHOULD grants me a choice, why might I decide not to do what it says
here?  Or should this be MUST?

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:27:06 +0000

Hi Murray,

Thanks for the review. I've created GitHub issue(s) to track each comment
on the QUIC WG repository, see the URL(s) in line.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-qpack/

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4797

> here?  Or should this be MUST?

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4798

Cheers
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs