Draft: draft-ietf-quic-manageability

Commentary: Some section refs were n't linked to the sections ; some objects were defined multiple ways ; one reference was n't actually cited in the text . 
 Thanks a lot !
Paragraph (version A):
Applying address translation at a middlebox to maintain a stable
address-port mapping for flows based on connection ID might seem like
a solution to this problem.  However, hiding information about the
change of the IP address or port conceals important and security-
relevant information from QUIC endpoints and as such would facilitate
amplification attacks (see section 9 of QUIC-TRANSPORT).  An NAT
function that hides peer address changes prevents the other end from
detecting and mitigating attacks as the endpoint cannot verify
connectivity to the new address using QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE and
PATH_RESPONSE frames.
Paragraph (version B):
Applying address translation at a middlebox to maintain a stable
address-port mapping for flows based on connection ID might seem like
a solution to this problem.  However, hiding information about the
change of the IP address or port conceals important and security-
relevant information from QUIC endpoints and as such would facilitate
amplification attacks (see Section 9 of QUIC-TRANSPORT).  A NAT
function that hides peer address changes prevents the other end from
detecting and mitigating attacks as the endpoint cannot verify
connectivity to the new address using QUIC PATH_CHALLENGE and
PATH_RESPONSE frames.
Paragraph (version A):
For TCP, MSS clamping (Section 3.2 of {?RFC4459}}) is often used to
change the sender's maximum TCP segment size, but QUIC requires a
different approach.  Section 14 of QUIC-TRANSPORT advises senders to
probe larger sizes using Datagram Packetization Layer PMTU Discovery
(DPLPMTUD) or Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PMTUD:
RFC1191 and RFC8201).  This mechanism will encourage senders to
approach the maximum size, which could cause fragmentation with a
network segment that they may not be aware of.
Paragraph (version B):
For TCP, MSS clamping (Section 3.2 of RFC4459) is often used to
change the sender's maximum TCP segment size, but QUIC requires a
different approach.  Section 14 of QUIC-TRANSPORT advises senders to
probe larger sizes using Datagram Packetization Layer PMTU Discovery
(DPLPMTUD) or Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PMTUD:
RFC1191 and RFC8201).  This mechanism will encourage senders to
approach the maximum size, which could cause fragmentation with a
network segment that they may not be aware of.
Paragraph (version A):
I-D.draft-ietf-quic-datagram specifies a QUIC extension to enable
sending and receiving unreliable datagrams over QUIC.  Unlike
operating directly over UDP, applications that use the QUIC datagram
service do not need to implement their own congestion control, per
RFC8085, as QUIC datagrams are congestion controlled.
Paragraph (version B):
I-D.ietf-quic-datagram specifies a QUIC extension to enable sending
and receiving unreliable datagrams over QUIC.  Unlike operating
directly over UDP, applications that use the QUIC datagram service do
not need to implement their own congestion control, per RFC8085, as
QUIC datagrams are congestion controlled.