Compatible Version Negotiation for QUIC
draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-14

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Joey Salazar for the SECDIR review.

** Section 4.
  Clients MUST ignore any received Version Negotiation packets that
  contain the version that they initially attempted. 

Shouldn’t this read “… that contain _any of the versions_  that they initially attempted” since multiple versions may have been previously offered?

** Section 5.  Editorial.  The text defined “Fully-Deployed Versions” in this section but uses it first in Section 4.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document -- in addition to providing a useful / important capability, it's also surprisingly readable and understandable, even by someone not deeply knowledgable about QUIC / QUIC startup. This is especially impressive for a topic like this...


I'd also like to thank the OpsDir reviewer (Qin Wu) for the helpful review, and the authors for addressing the comments.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Robert Sparks for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/q4nfiA-lk3-dpm66IdFh8oGUOr0).

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1, paragraph 2
```
al versions are broadly similar to the the previous version. This specificat
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 4, paragraph 5
```
ated version. If the client would have selected a different version, the cli
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "had selected"?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-12
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Matt Joras for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *even* if the justification of the intended status is rather weak.

Please note that Petr Špaček is the DNS directorate reviewer (at the chairs' request) and you may want to consider his review as well (and I have read the email dialogue with David):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/swTm6QGRLQqnsVC87asXiedii9s/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Section 2

In `the versions are compatible` what is meant by 'compatible' ? Identical version ? Some clarity early in the document will help the reader without waiting the section 2.2.

### Section 11

As the "TCP" reference is only used in a note in section 1.2, it should probably be an informative reference.

### Section 4

```
  For QUIC version 1, version negotiation errors are signaled using a
  transport error of type VERSION_NEGOTIATION_ERROR; see Section 10.2.
```
Just wondering how an already deployed QUIC version 1 implementation that was not updated will know how to send this error type as it is only specified by the document in 2022... I am sure that I miss something else I would have balloted a DISCUSS.

### Section 5

Just to write my appreciation of this section that takes deployment in consideration. Good idea!

### Section 7.2

Same explanations about the use of "SHOULD" will probably be welcome by implementers.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot comment]
This document updates rfc8999, which points at rfc9000 "for a more thorough description of how an endpoint that supports QUIC version 1 generates and consumes a Version Negotiation packet". 

There is also text in §4 that seems to modify how a QUIC version 1 endpoint behaves.

Should rfc9000 also be updated?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for another clear and well written document.

One minor comment:

(1) p 9, sec 3.  Version Information                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
  Client-Sent Available Versions:  When sent by a client, the Available                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
      Versions field lists all the versions that this first flight is                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
      compatible with, ordered by descending preference.  Note that the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
      version in the Chosen Version field MUST be included in this list                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
      to allow the client to communicate the chosen version's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
      preference.  Note that this preference is only advisory, servers                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
      MAY choose to use their own preference instead.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
  Server-Sent Available Versions:  When sent by a server, the Available                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
      Versions field lists all the Fully-Deployed Versions of this                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
      server deployment, see Section 5.  Note that the version in the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
      Chosen Version field is not necessarily included in this list,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
      because the server operator could be in the process of removing                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
      support for this version.  For the same reason, the Available                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
      Versions field MAY be empty.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
It might be helpful to explicitly indicate whether the sever-sent available versions are ordered (as per the client), or unordered.  I presume that it is latter because it isn't stated, but it may improve readability of the document if this was explicit.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Regards,
Rob

// Thank to Qin for OPSDIR review.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the QUIC Transport Parameters registry on the QUIC registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic/

There is an existing, provisional registration as follows:

Value: 0xFF73DB
Parameter Name: version_information
Status: provisional

In its place a new registration will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Parameter Name: version_information
Status: permanent
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Date: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Change Controller: IETF
Contact: [QUIC_WG]
Notes:

The new registration will come from the 0-63 range. The earlier 0xFF73DB registration will be removed.

Second, in the QUIC Transport Error Codes registry also on the QUIC registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic/

There is an existing, provisional registration as follows:

Value: 0x53F8
Code: VERSION_NEGOTIATION_ERROR
Description: Error negotiating version
Status: provisional

In its place a new registration will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Code: VERSION_NEGOTIATION_ERROR
Description: Error negotiating version
Status: permanent
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Date: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Change Controller: IETF
Contact: [QUIC_WG]
Notes:

The new registration will come from the 0-63 range. The earlier 0x53F8 registration will be removed.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation@ietf.org, matt.joras@gmail.com, quic-chairs@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Compatible Version Negotiation for QUIC) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the QUIC WG (quic) to consider the
following document: - 'Compatible Version Negotiation for QUIC'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-11. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  QUIC does not provide a complete version negotiation mechanism but
  instead only provides a way for the server to indicate that the
  version the client chose is unacceptable.  This document describes a
  version negotiation mechanism that allows a client and server to
  select a mutually supported version.  Optionally, if the client's
  chosen version and the negotiated version share a compatible first
  flight format, the negotiation can take place without incurring an
  extra round trip.  This document updates RFC 8999.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement. This document was widely discussed on github, the mailing list, and at multiple IETF meetings.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Given the nature of the work (versions and moving between versions) there were some philosophical questions that had to be ironed out, but ultimately the consensus was not unusually rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are multiple interoperating implementations which have been reported and tested through the typical form of social testing on the QUIC dev slack workspace. This includes major implementers who intend to use it in production.

### Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Normal linting.

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe these documents are cclearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready for AD review.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed?
    For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

N/A.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]?
    To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed?
    If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including
    links to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, there are no disclosures to file.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed
    as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is
    greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Not that I can see.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and
    [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]?
    If so, list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document clearly identifies the registration of new values in established
QUIC registries. While developed in the WG, the document has used values in the
provisional range. Once the document is approved, values in the permanent range
will be requested for allocation. This document, as a Proposed Standard, meets
the permanent registration criteria.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement. This document was widely discussed on github, the mailing list, and at multiple IETF meetings.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Given the nature of the work (versions) and the relationship with version negotiation, there were some philosophical questions that had to be ironed out, but ultimately the consensus was not unusually rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are multiple interoperating implementations which have been reported and tested through the typical form of social testing on the QUIC dev slack workspace. This includes major implementers who intend to use it in production.

### Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Normal linting.

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe these documents are clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready for AD review.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed?
    For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

N/A.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]?
    To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed?
    If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including
    links to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, there are no disclosures to file.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed
    as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is
    greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Not that I can see.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and
    [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]?
    If so, list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document clearly identifies the registration of new a value in the QUIC
versions registry. While developed in the WG, the document has used values in
the provisional range. Once the document is approved, a value in the permanent
range will be requested for allocation. This document, as a Proposed Standard,
meets the permanent registration criteria.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement. This document was widely discussed on github, the mailing list, and at multiple IETF meetings.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Given the nature of the work (versions and moving between versions) there were some philosophical questions that had to be ironed out, but ultimately the consensus was not unusually rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are multiple interoperating implementations which have been reported and tested through the typical form of social testing on the QUIC dev slack workspace. This includes major implementers who intend to use it in production.

### Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Normal linting.

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe these documents are cclearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready for AD review.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed?
    For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

N/A.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]?
    To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed?
    If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including
    links to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, there are no disclosures to file.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed
    as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is
    greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Not that I can see.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and
    [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]?
    If so, list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document clearly identifies the registration of new values in established
QUIC registries. While developed in the WG, the document has used values in the
provisional range. Once the document is approved, values in the permanent range
will be requested for allocation. This document, as a Proposed Standard, meets
the permanent registration criteria.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement. This document was widely discussed on github, the mailing list, and at multiple IETF meetings.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Given the nature of the work (versions and moving between versions) there were some philosophical questions that had to be ironed out, but ultimately the consensus was not unusually rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are multiple interoperating implementations which have been reported and tested through the typical form of social testing on the QUIC dev slack workspace. This includes major implementers who intend to use it in production.

### Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Normal linting.

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

I believe these documents are cclearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready for AD review.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed?
    For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

N/A.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard; because we believe there is consensus to publish it

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]?
    To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed?
    If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including
    links to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, there are no disclosures to file.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed
    as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is
    greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Not that I can see.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and
    [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]?
    If so, list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document clearly identifies the registration of new values in established
QUIC registries. While developed in the WG, the document has used values in the
provisional range. Once the document is approved, values in the permanent range
will be requested for allocation. This document, as a Proposed Standard, meets
the permanent registration criteria.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A