Re: Fwd: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 4/21/21 12:00 PM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for context, and to correct some misrepresentations, here is my reply 
> to Michael from the QUIC list.

I counted the number of messages from the rest of the working group 
before one of the chairs called it off topic and for me to go way and it 
was 4 or maybe 5. And "as chair" is not a suggestion, it is a command. 
It sure seems to me that the number of messages a transport protocol 
needs to start a session is pretty on topic, or at least of interest.

Getting told to go elsewhere *is* dramatic, if not predictable.

Mike

>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *Lars Eggert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> *Subject: **Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room*
>> *Date: *April 21, 2021 at 19:46:57 GMT+3
>> *To: *Michael Thomas <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> *Cc: *Eric Rescorla <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Phillip 
>> Hallam-Baker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
>> Matt Joras <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
>> Lucas Pardue <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, David Schinazi 
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, IETF 
>> QUIC WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2021-4-21, at 19:11, Michael Thomas <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> I am a newcomer. I came here against my better judgement as I stated 
>>> on the IETF list.
>>
>> I have emails from you in my IETF mail archive at least as far back 
>> as 2006. But I assume you mean that you are a newcomer to the QUIC WG.
>>
>>> I immediately had my head chopped off and told to go away by a 
>>> working group chair in less than 24 hours.
>>
>> I don't think you're helping your case by using dramatic phrases.
>>
>> To recap: You brought a proposal that had been discussed elsewhere to 
>> the QUIC WG list. You got feedback from a number of different 
>> participants on your proposal. The discussion veered away from QUIC 
>> to other protocols that this WG is not working on. A chair suggested 
>> you continue the discussion on a mailing list better suited to your 
>> topic.
>>
>>> If the number of packets exchanged in the initial handshake of a 
>>> transport protocol is off topic, I am speechless. My better 
>>> judgement wasn't that it was off topic, it was that this outcome is 
>>> the ordinary behavior of insular IETF working groups.
>>
>> A number of participants have commented on this already, for example, 
>> pointing out that the number of round trips matter much more than the 
>> number of packets, and that in their opinion your suggestion would 
>> not lead to further substantial enough gains. You then moved the 
>> topic of the discussion to why Google (and I assume other companies) 
>> are not signing their zones and offered theories as to why that is, 
>> which is not a topic of relevance to this WG. Hence the request to 
>> discuss it elsewhere.
>>
>>> I also got told that signing a zone is tantamount to "boiling the 
>>> ocean".
>>
>> You're misquoting David. He said:
>>
>> On 2021-4-20, at 20:20, David Schinazi <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> I'm not saying that a 3-packet handshake would be bad, I'm saying
>>> that it's not worth boiling the ocean to remove 2 packets.
>>
>> Nowhere in that sentence or the rest of David's email do I see any 
>> mention of signing zones.
>>
>>> As IETF chair, do you agree with that? Because if it's true then 
>>> there are serious issues with DNSSec and we should do something 
>>> about it. I think it's nonsense, fwiw.
>>
>> Again, not a topic for *this* mailing list.
>>
>>> Mike, and what exactly are those venues? tia.
>>
>> I'd start at DNSOP and ask if there is a more appropriate list.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lars
>>
>>
>