Hi Paul, Cutting a bit to try to get this to concrete actions on the document; will follow up on the other points in a subsequent message... > On 22 Mar 2022, at 17:25, Paul Vixie <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > <snip> > perhaps this wording will be if lesser concern to you: > > <<Identification of QUIC traffic by on-path actors such as network operators is not reliable. Therefore a heuristic along the lines of "any unrecognizable UDP traffic could be QUIC" is the least unappealing way for a network operator to characterize their network's UDP traffic in the QUIC era.>> I don’t think this fits editorially with the rest of the document. However, I do see your point that “not designed to be distinguishable” is maybe not strong enough. I also note that there’s something hiding in the rest of Section 3.1 that we should maybe make more explicit: “this traffic is definitely QUIC” is probabilistically doable, but there are better heuristics on a per-application basis. How about something like: <<The QUIC wire image is not specifically designed to be distinguishable from other UDP traffic by a passive observer in the network. While certain QUIC applications may be heuristically identifiable on a per-application basis, there is no general method for distinguishing QUIC traffic from otherwise-unclassifiable UDP traffic on a given link. Any unrecognized UDP traffic may therefore be QUIC traffic.>> ? Cheers, Brian -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
