Thanks for addressing my earlier secdir comments on -15. I think the ones below remain but are, from my POV, nits: - Abstract: This draft aims for proposed standard but is updating a BCP (RFC8085/BCP145). I'm happy to leave the process-lawyering for that to others. - 6.3: I am surprised that the QUIC description here is ready to be an RFC before QUIC itself. I do see there are normative references, but the potential for a breaking change still exists, and seems a bit unwise. (I'd suggest, holding this in the WG 'till the referenced QUIC drafts are in the RFC editor queue, or else taking that bit out and putting it into a new I-D.)