Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-recovery-33: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:36:20 -0800

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-recovery-33: No Objection

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-recovery/

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

Thanks to Derrell Piper for the SECDIR review.

** Section 3.  Per “The encryption level indicates the packet number space, as
described in [QUIC-TRANSPORT ]”, I think that reference here is Section 4.*
from [QUIC-TLS] as I can’t find a mapping between PNS and encryption levels as
discussed here in [QUIC-TRANSPORT].

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 04:17:54 +0000

Hi Roman,

Thanks for the review. I've captured your comments as issues on the QUIC WG
GItHub repository. Links to each are provided as in-line responses.

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

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4555

Cheers,
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs