Skip to content

Add reference to the IAB RFC on protocol transitions #41

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
tfpauly merged 3 commits into from
Oct 20, 2025
Merged

Add reference to the IAB RFC on protocol transitions #41

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
773b2cb
Add reference to the IAB RFC on protocol transitions
dthaler Jul 7, 2025
e2c1884
Add another section reference
dthaler Jul 7, 2025
cc38100
Apply PR feedback
dthaler Jul 21, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 8 additions & 3 deletions draft-edm-protocol-greasing.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -222,7 +222,8 @@ might end up special-casing grease values.
The patterns for sending grease values can be made more effective by
coordinating between devices sending the values. One example of coordination
is having a "flag day" where implementations start sending grease values
broadly, and measure to see where errors occur.
broadly, and measure to see where errors occur. See {{Section 3 of ?TRANSITION=RFC8170}}
for more considerations concerning the use of a flag day.

## Don't Handle Grease Values as a Special Case

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -355,9 +356,13 @@ connections, or phases within a connection.

# Considerations for Protocol Versions {#versions}

There are intrinsic and well-documented issues related to testing version
{{TRANSITION}} discusses considerations around planning for transitioning
Copy link
Collaborator

@LPardue LPardue Jul 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unsure if planned or coincidence but this text is in a section mooted for removal in #49 (comment)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@dthaler dthaler Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think it should be removed.

from an existing protocol, or protocol version, to a new one.
There are also intrinsic and well-documented issues related to testing version
negotiation of protocols; see {{?EXTENSIBILITY=RFC6709}} and {{Sections 2.1 and
3.2 of VIABILITY}}. This section will be expanded with advice for protocol
3.2 of VIABILITY}}.

This section will be expanded with advice for protocol
designers and implementers about how to approach these problems.

# Security Considerations
Expand Down