saradickinson
commented
2 years ago https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pull/162 tries to address the first bullet, but I'm not sure what is being asked in the second? Is the answer 'by keeping state on each stream' or 'by adding a configuration option to define the limit'?
huitema
Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: No Objection
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/
COMMENT:
Thanks a lot for working on this specification. Thanks to Brian Trammell for the TSVART review.
I have following comments and I think addressing them will improve this documentation-
Section 5.3.3 - should also list the protocol error case related to session resumption and 0-RTT, and put a reference to section 5.5 for further details.
Section 5.2 says -
"Implementations MAY impose a limit on the number of such dangling streams. If limits are encountered, implementations MAY close the connection."
However, I have not notices any indication of how this limits can be set. I would be great if we can say how the implementer can enforce the normative "MAY".