Subject: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-quic-invariants-12: (with DISCUSS)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 03:42:26 -0800

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-invariants-12: Discuss

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-invariants/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

A trivial discuss that should hopefully be easy to resolve, and it is plausible
that the resolution may end up being in the QUIC transport document:

In this document, the unused bits are defined as:

                   Figure 4: Version Negotiation Packet

   Only the most significant bit of the first byte of a Version
   Negotiation packet has any defined value.  The remaining 7 bits,
   labeled Unused, can be set to any value when sending and MUST be
   ignored on receipt.

In the QUIC transport document, they are defined as this:

                   Figure 14: Version Negotiation Packet

   The value in the Unused field is selected randomly by the server.
   Clients MUST ignore the value of this field.  Servers SHOULD set the
   most significant bit of this field (0x40) to 1 so that Version
   Negotiation packets appear to have the Fixed Bit field.

I would have expected that these two should be consistent as to whether the
Fixed Bit SHOULD be set to 1 or not.  Given draft-thomson-quic-bit-grease-00,
it might be better if the SHOULD is removed from QUIC transport, but I will
defer to the experts here.

Regards,
Rob

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:31:21 +0000

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the review. I've tracked your discuss comments as a new issue on
the QUIC WG GitHub Repo at https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4468

Cheers,
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 10:40:16 +1100

Hi Rob,

> defer to the experts here.

Thanks for picking this up.  This is a little bit of overreach in the transport draft.  I agree that removing the recommendation is sensible.   I've opened https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4471 for this.

Cheers,
Martin

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 17:47:48 +0000

Hi Martin,

Thanks.  I've cleared the discuss on the QUIC invariants doc.

Regards,
Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
> Sent: 04 January 2021 23:40
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>; The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; WG Chairs <[email-masked]>;
> [email-masked]; Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-quic-invariants-12:
> (with DISCUSS)
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> Thanks for picking this up.  This is a little bit of overreach in the
> transport draft.  I agree that removing the recommendation is sensible.
> I've opened https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4471 for this.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin