The document contains no direct or indirect reference to the DNS.

I'm unfamiliar with QUIC protocol details and thus not qualified to make detailed comments on the protocol. On the surface, it looks good.

The document is clearly motivated, and the proposed mechanism's description contains helpful examples throughout the whole document.


A list of nits follows, very likely as a matter of personal taste - feel free to ignore:

From my perspective, the document overuses forward references to itself, which makes it harder to follow.

a) Section 8 Special Handling for QUIC Version 1
It would be nice if this section were mentioned in the beginning. For a while, I thought the proposed protocol could not work because I did not notice special handling in the Table of contents. I would put it forwarding, possibly as a subsection of the Version Information section.

b) The first mention of "transport parameter" could use a reference to RFC 9000 sec. 7.4 to make it easier for the reader.

c) Also, section 5.  Server Deployments of QUIC forward could appear earlier,  possibly as a subsection of the Version Information section.

For me personally more logical text flow would be:

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Version Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
      8.  Special Handling for QUIC Version 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
      5.  Server Deployments of QUIC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   2.  Version Negotiation Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Version Downgrade Prevention  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

With enough jumping back and forth, the document makes sense, so again, feel free to ignore me.