Subject: [QUIC] Alissa Cooper's Yes on charter-ietf-quic-00-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:46:04 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-quic-00-08: 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.)

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

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

"The QUIC 
protocol need not be defined to enable each of these abilities, or 
enable them in the same way as they are enabled by TCP when used 
with TLS 1.3, but the working group must consider the impact of the
protocol on network management practices, in line with RFC 7258."

The way this is phrased makes it sound like RFC 7258 is about protocol
impact on network management, which isn't the case. I would suggest
dropping "in line with RFC 7258." Alternatively, you could say something
like:

"The QUIC 
protocol need not be defined to enable each of these abilities, or 
enable them in the same way as they are enabled by TCP when used 
with TLS 1.3, but the working group must consider the impact of the
protocol on network management practices, reflecting the tensions
described in RFC 7258."

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:54:12 -0500

Hi, Alissa,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-quic/

I like your second alternative better. I'll see if anyone else has thoughts
about this, before we approve and announce.

Thank you for the suggestion.

Spencer

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:59:12 -0500

Dear IESG,

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> On 29 Sep 2016, at 03:54, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Alissa,
>
> I like your second alternative better.
>
> Having slept on this, I like your second alternative even better this
morning. I made the change, resulting in version 00-09.

Thanks for the text suggestion, Alissa. *I* knew what I meant, but the new
text makes that clearer.

Spencer

> +1.
>
> I'll see if anyone else has thoughts about this, before we approve and
> announce.
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:21:16 +0100

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 03:54, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Alissa,
> 

+1.
> I'll see if anyone else has thoughts about this, before we approve and announce.
>