Thanks!
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 12:30 PM James <james.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Martin,
Thanks for clarifying, and no I'm not going to insist.
~ J
> On 10 Oct 2022, at 20:58, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> James,
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> I honestly don't think it's a big deal either way -- I'll add either normative word if you insist, but I don't think a requirement is necessary here and it flows a bit better this way in my opinion. "ignore" is obviously a pretty loose word to use -- it would certainly be OK for a client to log it or something.
>
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 7:43 AM James Gruessing via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Reviewer: James Gruessing
> Review result: Ready
>
> This is my review of draft-ietf-quic-v2-05 as part of ART Last Call review.
>
> Overall this is a well written document that is clear in its writing, and I
> have only one minor point of clarification.
>
> Section 4.1 - "The client ignores Retry packets using other versions." - is
> this supposed to be a normative phrase, i.e. "The client SHOULD/MUST ignore
> Retry packets"? This sentence feels out of place in a paragraph with normative
> text defining other requirements. Or is this a behaviour defined in VN that I
> have missed?
>
>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
