jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
receiver sends acknowledgments determines how long it takes for losses to be detected at the sender. <del> 8.2. </del> <ins> 9.2. </ins> Many congestion control algorithms have a startup mechanism during the beginning phases of a connection.  It is typical that in this

Related discussion:
text: That already seems possible if more than the threshold number of ack-eliciting packets are outstanding.
I've thought more about this, and I think most of the time a 1-byte frame would be acceptable, but it definitely adds some implementation complexity, so I'd be curious which design others prefer? If we can decide, then I'll be happy to write a PR(or NAME can). Besides PTO, a use case would be making the last packet before becoming app-limited elicit an immediate ACK. This could allow skipping maxackdelay for all PTOs(see ), though always doing it could be a bit much in some cases. For example, browsers commonly send a series of requests, but to the transport it seems app-limited between them, because it doesn't know the browser has another request to send. It might be useful for 'chirping' as well, but I've never tried that, so it's mostly speculation.
We don't currently have any intention of deploying them either, and I think that's unlikely to change. I haven't seen a lot of good evidence that they are terribly helpful, and content providers don't seem to have a good incentive for implementing it. For us at least, the difference in complexity for a frame versus a bit in the header is negligible. A frame is actually be slightly easier to implement and losing a byte here and there isn't so bad.
I strongly prefer using the header bit. Although it will be a bit more work to implement, the fact that I won't end up with a 1-byte STREAM frame that I have to split off at the end of the packet will be worth the effort.
Is testimony of network operators not taken as evidence? I remember a line of people, from different companies -- BT, ATT, and so on, at IETF 101 practically begging for some information in QUIC packets to be exposed for monitoring and troubleshooting.
I do not see anyone propose a 1-byte STREAM frame. I believe what is meant is a new frame type. If anything, using a new frame type to elicit an ACK is easier than using a header bit, as it involves fewer parts of the code to change.
Nobody is proposing a 1-byte STREAM frame (you can't just make up stream data anyway). The problem is that a new frame would consume bytes (or probably one byte) in the packet payload.
Code change:
receiver sends acknowledgments determines how long it takes for losses to be detected at the sender. <del> 8.2. </del> <ins> 9.2. </ins> Many congestion control algorithms have a startup mechanism during the beginning phases of a connection.  It is typical that in this

Related discussion:
text: Given that you set this signal on a PTO, and PTOs are often retransmissions of packets, this would require you to repackage (and, most likely, cut off a single byte from a STREAM frame). Using a header bit would solve that problem.
NAME and I discussed this and there are number of ways to fix this, but given this issue of not being able to elicit an immediate ACK by skipping packet numbers is introduced by the draft, we feel it's important it be fixed in some way. One more option is new STREAM frame codepoints that elicit an immediate ACK.
I'm ready to write a PR, but I'd appreciate thoughts on whether the existing PING frame should be repurposed or we should add a new frame(ACK, PONG, etc). I lean towards a new frame, since there are enough code-points and I believe there are use cases for the existing PING frame that does not elicit an immediate ACK.
+1. While I would not be opposed to repurposing the existing PING frame, I do not see the necessity of doing that. Let's simply consume one code point of the remaining 33.
Thanks, now for bikeshedding time. Some possible names: ACKME ACKPULL (from TCP) FAST_ACK PONG
Putting on my bikeshedding hat: I don't think we should prefix the frame name with ACK since that almost makes it looks like yet another variant of the ACK frame. The "pull" TCP terminology is fine (e.g. PULLACK) but we could also be more explicit with something like SOLICIT_ACK.
SCTP has something similar and calls it SACK-IMMEDIATELY (RFC 7053).
Thanks, I'd be happy with ACKIMMEDIATELY or IMMEDIATEACK
For those two options I'd prefer IMMEDIATE_ACK for the same reasoning as above -- so it appears less like an ACK variant.
IMMEDIATEACK sounds good to me. Alternatively, I'd be also fine with something like ACKNOW.
IMMEDIATE_ACK it is, PR coming.
Code change:
9. Security issues are discussed throughout this memo, especially in <del> Appendices B, C, and D. </del> <ins> implementation-notes, backward-compatibility, and security-analysis. </ins> 10.

Related discussion:
text: Just noticed that the MTI suites section didn't link to the suites, so here's a minor PR with some reference fiddling for this section: Add a link in MTI suites to the suites section, now that they're defined in this document. Nitpick ordering of extensions in MTI extensions to have them in same order as sections (so numbers in links are consistient). Change plaintext reference to appendices in Security Considerations to actual references.
Code change:
5.1.1. HPKE public keys are opaque values in a format defined by the <del> underlying protocol (see the Cryptographic Dependencies section of the HPKE specification for more information). </del> <ins> underlying protocol (see Section 4 of RFC9180 for more information). </ins> Signature public keys are likewise represented as opaque values in a format defined by the ciphersuite's signature scheme.

Related discussion:
text: URL This definition of a handshake message is being defined in terms of a Proposal or Commit object, neither of which are defined in this session. Furthermore, PublicMessage or PrivateMessage aren’t defined either as this point in the text. To improve clarity, consider defining these key terms. The use of "respectively" in the text is suggesting that PrivateMessages don’t have integrity protection which is not accurate. (see the Cryptographic Dependencies section of the HPKE specification for more information). Is this Section 4 of RFC9180?  If so, why not say that? What would be the circumstance where the application_id extension would be treated with equal standing as something from the AS?  Why can’t this be a "MUST"? Unsaid is what to do if the proposal list is not valid.  Please clarify. Is this normative behavior required, or could it be left up to application?  The mixing of updates/removes on the same node and the SHOULD guidance already means that this "recovery from an invalid node" may not be consistent across clients/DS-es. Same observation on recovering from ReInit with any other proposals. Is there any additional retry mechanism?  Let’s say the sender of the proposal doesn’t see it reflect in the epoch after it sent proposal.  And then not in the next epoch.  Does it try resending indefinitely? This setup seems a little simplistic. If the application data is encrypted to begin with, how does the adversary know the question being posed by Alice?
Code change:
TLDs as well, but only Iran has acted by blocking all Israeli (.il) domains Albert-2011. <del> 4.4. </del> <ins> 4.5. </ins> Distributed Denial of Service attacks are a common attack mechanism used by "hacktivists" and black-hat hackers, but censors have used

Related discussion:
text: s/prevention/interference/ ... Censors can degrade performance to a particular site, or for a particular service, effectively making performance so bad for a site that users opt to use a different site or service. China is known to do this. Censors can try to have content removed via takedown requests, under the guise of laws that forbid certain content (e.g., hate speech or whatnot). The ANC is .za has been accused of using the laws in this fashion.
Will Scott also noted in feedback to me that throttling should get more of a call out than it currently does:
Code change:
acknowledgments will cause undesirable bursts of data into the network. <del> 9. </del> <ins> 10. </ins> TBD. <del> 10. </del> <ins> 11. </ins> TBD. <del> 11.  References </del> <ins> 12.  References </ins> <del> 11.1.  URIs </del> <ins> 12.1.  URIs </ins> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic

Related discussion:
text: by adding a one byte IMMEDIATE_ACK frame.
editorial nit: my preference would be for frame diagrams to use the notation in QUIC transport. I see that ACK_FREQUENCY is defined using ASCII art, so perhaps you want to consider a separate follow up PR to switch styles after this lands.
Thanks Lucas, I filed to update them.
They currently use ascii art. Will write this up once is merged.
sgtm, thanks!
When sending a PTO packet, a sender wants to induce an immediate ACK. The only trick I know to induce such an ACK is intentionally skip the packet number. However, the problem of that approach is that it relies on the receiver not ignoring reorders. When an ACKFREQUENCY frame previously sent had set the bit, then it become impossible for a sender to induce an immediate ACK when sending a PTO packet. At the moment, the only solution is to bundle an ACK_FREQUENCY packet in each PTO packet, but that seems like a bit of unnecessary overhead to me. Should we have a dedicated frame for inducing immediate ACKs instead?
That's an option. Another option is to revisit the max_reordering idea discussed in . If the max reordering was 5, then you could skip 5 PNs. I do feel like it'd be nice to allow specifying an int for max reordering, since that matches up with adaptive packet threshold loss detection, but as I expressed in , I think getting the details right are deceptively difficult, so I'm torn.
This does seem like a real problem. I like the idea of a single "ELICIT_ACK" type frame. With one byte a sender could effectively mark its PTOs ensuring they get an ACK without relying on the trick. An explicit frame is also easier to implement for the sender than the packet number skipping.
There's quite a bit of discussion on this on the tcpm mailing list at the moment, ie: URL I'm increasingly thinking it's worth using an unused protected bit in the header for this. It'd end up competing with the 2-bit packet loss measurements, but given those are experimental and may never be widely deployed, I think it might be worth it. For example, I believe this could allow an implementation to not include maxackdelay in PTO if it set the "ACK-pull"(or whatever it's called) bit on the final packet.
Code change:
acknowledgments will cause undesirable bursts of data into the network. <del> 9. </del> <ins> 10. </ins> TBD. <del> 10. </del> <ins> 11. </ins> TBD. <del> 11.  References </del> <ins> 12.  References </ins> <del> 11.1.  URIs </del> <ins> 12.1.  URIs </ins> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic

Related discussion:
text: That already seems possible if more than the threshold number of ack-eliciting packets are outstanding.
I've thought more about this, and I think most of the time a 1-byte frame would be acceptable, but it definitely adds some implementation complexity, so I'd be curious which design others prefer? If we can decide, then I'll be happy to write a PR(or NAME can). Besides PTO, a use case would be making the last packet before becoming app-limited elicit an immediate ACK. This could allow skipping maxackdelay for all PTOs(see ), though always doing it could be a bit much in some cases. For example, browsers commonly send a series of requests, but to the transport it seems app-limited between them, because it doesn't know the browser has another request to send. It might be useful for 'chirping' as well, but I've never tried that, so it's mostly speculation.
We don't currently have any intention of deploying them either, and I think that's unlikely to change. I haven't seen a lot of good evidence that they are terribly helpful, and content providers don't seem to have a good incentive for implementing it. For us at least, the difference in complexity for a frame versus a bit in the header is negligible. A frame is actually be slightly easier to implement and losing a byte here and there isn't so bad.
I strongly prefer using the header bit. Although it will be a bit more work to implement, the fact that I won't end up with a 1-byte STREAM frame that I have to split off at the end of the packet will be worth the effort.
Is testimony of network operators not taken as evidence? I remember a line of people, from different companies -- BT, ATT, and so on, at IETF 101 practically begging for some information in QUIC packets to be exposed for monitoring and troubleshooting.
I do not see anyone propose a 1-byte STREAM frame. I believe what is meant is a new frame type. If anything, using a new frame type to elicit an ACK is easier than using a header bit, as it involves fewer parts of the code to change.
Nobody is proposing a 1-byte STREAM frame (you can't just make up stream data anyway). The problem is that a new frame would consume bytes (or probably one byte) in the packet payload.
Code change:
acknowledgments will cause undesirable bursts of data into the network. <del> 9. </del> <ins> 10. </ins> TBD. <del> 10. </del> <ins> 11. </ins> TBD. <del> 11.  References </del> <ins> 12.  References </ins> <del> 11.1.  URIs </del> <ins> 12.1.  URIs </ins> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic

Related discussion:
text: Given that you set this signal on a PTO, and PTOs are often retransmissions of packets, this would require you to repackage (and, most likely, cut off a single byte from a STREAM frame). Using a header bit would solve that problem.
NAME and I discussed this and there are number of ways to fix this, but given this issue of not being able to elicit an immediate ACK by skipping packet numbers is introduced by the draft, we feel it's important it be fixed in some way. One more option is new STREAM frame codepoints that elicit an immediate ACK.
I'm ready to write a PR, but I'd appreciate thoughts on whether the existing PING frame should be repurposed or we should add a new frame(ACK, PONG, etc). I lean towards a new frame, since there are enough code-points and I believe there are use cases for the existing PING frame that does not elicit an immediate ACK.
+1. While I would not be opposed to repurposing the existing PING frame, I do not see the necessity of doing that. Let's simply consume one code point of the remaining 33.
Thanks, now for bikeshedding time. Some possible names: ACKME ACKPULL (from TCP) FAST_ACK PONG
Putting on my bikeshedding hat: I don't think we should prefix the frame name with ACK since that almost makes it looks like yet another variant of the ACK frame. The "pull" TCP terminology is fine (e.g. PULLACK) but we could also be more explicit with something like SOLICIT_ACK.
SCTP has something similar and calls it SACK-IMMEDIATELY (RFC 7053).
Thanks, I'd be happy with ACKIMMEDIATELY or IMMEDIATEACK
For those two options I'd prefer IMMEDIATE_ACK for the same reasoning as above -- so it appears less like an ACK variant.
IMMEDIATEACK sounds good to me. Alternatively, I'd be also fine with something like ACKNOW.
IMMEDIATE_ACK it is, PR coming.
Code change:
contain frames. QUIC payloads MUST contain at least one frame, and MAY contain <del> multiple frames and multiple frame types. </del> <ins> multiple frames and multiple frame types.  Frames MUST fit within a single QUIC packet and MUST NOT span a QUIC packet boundary. </ins> <del> Frames MUST fit within a single QUIC packet and MUST NOT span a QUIC packet boundary.  Each frame begins with a Frame Type, indicating its type, followed by additional type-dependent fields: </del> <ins> Each frame begins with a Frame Type, indicating its type, followed by additional type-dependent fields: </ins> The frame types defined in this specification are listed in frame- types.  The Frame Type in ACK, STREAM, MAX_STREAMS, STREAMS_BLOCKED,

Related discussion:
text: This was always intended (and also written in the description of FRAMEENCODINGERROR), but didn't show up in the text somehow.
I agree with NAME about the MUSTs that you shuffled around are statements of fact, not interoperability requirements, but the addition is fine.
Code change:
IPv4 - "all CoRE resource directories" address MCD2 (suggestion: 224.0.1.189), from the "IPv4 Multicast Address Space Registry".  As the address is used for discovery that may span beyond a single <del> network, it has come from the Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1.x, RFC 5771). </del> <ins> network, it has come from the Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1.x) RFC5771. </ins> IPv6 - "all CoRE resource directories" address MCD1 (suggestions FF0X::FE), from the "IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry", in the

Related discussion:
text: All expected to be uncontroversial; to be merged soon.
Commit 3809be46013e9708a6584c4fb730e7cfecab5f22 should have been part of this as well, and is already applied to master.
Code change:
The authors thank Benjamin Kaduk for providing the content related to TLS certificate validation of the API server. <ins> The authors thank Michael Richardson for providing wording requiring DNSSEC and TLS to operate without the user adding exceptions. </ins> The authors thank various individuals for their feedback on the mailing list and during the IETF98 hackathon: David Bird, Erik Kline, Alexis La Goulette, Alex Roscoe, Darshak Thakore, and Vincent van

Related discussion:
text: Attempting to fix issue . I attempted to reword the principles, adding more prose for the rationale. Also upgraded some SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT because it seems some people thought the SHOULD NOT says the existing approach is OK. These are just some ideas. I won't be offended if rejected.
I believe I addressed all comments. You'll probably want to review the complete diff again.
Benjamin writes in his review: Michael replied with this suggested text: This seems reasonable, as I mentioned in the reply. We should go with it, unless anyone has an objection. Also, attribute it to Michael Richardson.
S. Moonesamy writes
One approach I suggested in my reply to the feedback:
This is good. Thanks for sorting through this; it's important that this is right, and you have cleared it up a lot.Much clearer. Thanks!
Code change:
curves, they SHOULD perform the additional checks specified in Section 7 of <del> 6.1.1. </del> <ins> 6.1.2. </ins> This ciphersuite uses the following primitives:

Related discussion:
text: Here's the Weekly Digest for : - - Last week 2 issues were created. Of these, 0 issues have been closed and 2 issues are still open. :greenheart: , by :greenheart: , by - - Last week, 8 pull requests were created, updated or merged. Last week, 1 pull request was opened. :greenheart: , by Last week, 5 pull requests were updated. :yellowheart: , by :yellowheart: , by :yellowheart: , by :yellowheart: , by :yellowheart: , by Last week, 2 pull requests were merged. :purpleheart: , by :purpleheart: , by - - Last week there were 2 commits. :hammerandwrench: by :hammerandwrench: by - - Last week there was 1 contributor. :bustinsilhouette: - - Last week there was 1 stargazer. :star: You are the star! :star2: - - Last week there were no releases. - - That's all for last week, please :eyes: Watch and :star: Star the repository to receive next weekly updates. :smiley: You can also .
Code change:
their peer.  This update changes the suggestion to assume support for SHA-256 instead, due to MD5 and SHA-1 being deprecated. <ins> In Section 7.4.1.4.1: the text should be revised from: </ins> OLD: <del> In Section 7.4.1.4.1: the text should be revised from " Note: this is a change from TLS 1.1 where there are no explicit rules, but as a practical matter one can assume that the peer supports MD5 and SHA- 1." </del> <ins> "Note: this is a change from TLS 1.1 where there are no explicit rules, but as a practical matter one can assume that the peer supports MD5 and SHA- 1." </ins> NEW:

Related discussion:
text: Addressing Roman's AD comments.
has 2 conflicts, not sure how to resolve, the updates look fine. Please merge.
There was a conflict with the 8174 reference being in the other branch. I added it in because it's now part of the terminology paragraph.
Please address the following IDNits: -- The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of URL for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5246, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7525, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Section 1. Editorial. -- s/RFC 5246 [RFC5246]/[RFC5246]/ -- s/RFC 6151 [RFC6151]/[RFC6151]/ -- s/RFC7525 [RFC7525]/[RFC7525]/ Section 1. Editorial. For symmetry with the rest of the text: OLD RFC 6151 [RFC6151] details the security considerations, including collision attacks for MD5, published in 2011. NEW In 2011, [RFC6151] detailed the security considerations, including collision attacks for MD5. Section 1. Please provide a reference for "Wang, et al". Is there a reference to provide for the "the potential for brute-force attack" Section 6. Editorial Nit. s/RFC5246 [RFC5246]/[RFC5246]/ Section 6. Move the text "In Section 7.4.1.4.1: the text should be revised from" out of the "OLD" block of text to be its own intro paragraph so that the OLD vs. NEW is a clear cut-and-paste. Section 7. Editorial. s/ RFC7525 [RFC7525]/[RFC7525]/ Section 7. SHA-1 is also not mentioned in RFC7525. Recommend: OLD The prior text did not explicitly include MD5 and this text adds it to ensure it is understood as having been deprecated.
Code change:
their peer.  This update changes the suggestion to assume support for SHA-256 instead, due to MD5 and SHA-1 being deprecated. <ins> In Section 7.4.1.4.1: the text should be revised from: </ins> OLD: <del> In Section 7.4.1.4.1: the text should be revised from " Note: this is a change from TLS 1.1 where there are no explicit rules, but as a practical matter one can assume that the peer supports MD5 and SHA- 1." </del> <ins> "Note: this is a change from TLS 1.1 where there are no explicit rules, but as a practical matter one can assume that the peer supports MD5 and SHA- 1." </ins> NEW:

Related discussion:
text: NEW The prior text did not explicitly include MD5 or SHA-1; and this text adds guidance to ensure that these algorithms have been deprecated. Section 7. Editorial. Grammar. OLD In addition, the use of the SHA-256 hash algorithm is RECOMMENDED, SHA-1 or MD5 MUST NOT be used NEW In addition, the use of the SHA-256 hash algorithm is RECOMMENDED; and SHA-1 or MD5 MUST NOT be used Section 10.2 Please make RFC5246 a normative reference.
Code change:
Supported Versions ("supported_versions"; supported-versions) <ins> Cookie ("cookie"; cookie) </ins> Signature Algorithms ("signature_algorithms"; signature- algorithms)

Related discussion:
text: Just noticed that the MTI suites section didn't link to the suites, so here's a minor PR with some reference fiddling for this section: Add a link in MTI suites to the suites section, now that they're defined in this document. Nitpick ordering of extensions in MTI extensions to have them in same order as sections (so numbers in links are consistient). Change plaintext reference to appendices in Security Considerations to actual references.