IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Masque] Proposed draft charter

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 11 February 2020 03:18 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: masque@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: masque@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E88412008C for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:18:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GONC_QAm459t for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4018E120072 for <masque@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id z26so5847152lfg.13 for <masque@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:18:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F29gXm2rtG/9CQjOhvx5qobs0Apfw/wqBXvzbkuIoXs=; b=I+QvTBz09FN3HI5uyQexAIxWdmdYf4r7rSjHpoXyaNVzokhdx5cc1sr2wQUzYNvC9o BMT7i9nQjehyHO7O19AUhFrZefRIH0GHho43pB9vp4d7+ftLsCTMCYL4BV+xgt5g+/6Y bg9R0Kh1Tu80XviLx2GtBrgTOI0NlAhaR+90yVbnF3+lV0R8IFB+X+rFUQv/Zyiag5ze 9jwoS100ImMYnVX7dSzA5xFCxfs1+uCJdYbLAcfjfRSwS9ClcVK1Uazg6Sue6mHq2Efi oZ2Flp2IyjkAJB2h+KqN50rT4yC8IK9DlDE+Q9iPrve7p/TkoBCDtiSbP5mGH9nBPeOL l/TA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F29gXm2rtG/9CQjOhvx5qobs0Apfw/wqBXvzbkuIoXs=; b=CFkALeb+qAocqjTN2O62XiKfoC9b0E/FR9JdCf5L6WFIcn5AZjjoRKqavvwToJbreQ NKZ+W+PioVs4YyRiTEYRmH46ZkHsy9Lwf+YfGd7fhBDNLoFhungRGQwmn14B++/E/Atg yVx9fm/yIsURYBiR5KSkO0eQ0PM9o4ECno1xAshd9sMf9AeihQuEynpVs9+pCAE2duzu VfMpCD/U99I0beY0OS3LOclZdOufplBJ02dm21PczUOAtxHYOE1qCb847POYm3zdV8Ek 2iyNRnJKXX3F/8GXdrwPLIwPCcXeZ0XADdBTqphOnl+S7AjOoHiD0GvJf+oQUbwTQdTT OqHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+96MCaU3qQ98ai+2U1Xyugfnu6VfOUGNgfdzMC9/2ZMP2F6k5 NIVgxC7OXTTXmabrDo+5AyQidiHu7blTDmoO//A8Esh9
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdJfw+KSOHvbKxGB8eGg+KQtVHBeR3UGolUUIzTvzwOqWVsoc3k4c2iLtE0ckm8p986/L6nfNHoc9lbZHvxmE=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:ca59:: with SMTP id h25mr2375532lfj.27.1581391125524; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:18:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <845946C2-EB98-4F3A-966E-968AE349302C@ericsson.com> <CABcZeBOJtyaa+J9PqoEZ7n8QahFy4n8nbBaCwUd0W+1BoMNnZQ@mail.gmail.com> <E68FB662-F6E5-49EE-AD92-AFCCCEA0CCE9@ericsson.com> <CABcZeBNEekD6GivQUvg8Gmz=_0EB1T_7PAeK=MNR_7+ObWJuTA@mail.gmail.com> <AE645E8F-6E17-4844-B8CC-373EB0909775@apple.com> <C58665A7-8550-4828-A7CD-603E3A64CFAF@ericsson.com> <1E734838-6F8E-4F13-AEEE-0A00F3E0C04C@apple.com> <CAKKJt-dFrVvcWUAVjAWMJHxk2BOhX+-y1R65i9KFLmB4SHDncA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMzzm5_pY1L0mqAxBLMdSEXretFb5DhQb8R=Sj_x1w4gQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMzzm5_pY1L0mqAxBLMdSEXretFb5DhQb8R=Sj_x1w4gQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:18:19 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-cVzaxxBqgw6pdCLBjKX_4PnjiFx5bOd6DW_ABeHFVzXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Eric Kinnear <ekinnear=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "masque@ietf.org" <masque@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000049b5bc059e4450dc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/HQ09TXA0vZkCqXa2lv6Byn0gYuU>
Subject: Re: [Masque] Proposed draft charter
X-BeenThere: masque@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption <masque.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/masque>, <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/>
List-Post: <mailto:masque@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque>, <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 03:18:49 -0000

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:45 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:31 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm finally reading this charter, as opposed to looking at the words ...
>> mostly, this looks fine to me.
>>
>> A couple of things inline.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 6:05 AM Eric Kinnear <ekinnear=
>> 40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Awesome, thanks all for the feedback!
>>>
>>> Updating with the changes proposed by Ekr and Lucas, thanks for the
>>> great suggestions.
>>>
>>> ===============
>>>
>>> Many network topologies lead to situations where transport protocol
>>> proxying is
>>> beneficial. For example, proxying enables endpoints to communicate when
>>> end-to-end connectivity is not possible and can apply additional
>>> encryption
>>> where desirable (such as a VPN).
>>>
>>> QUIC is a good candidate protocol for tunneling these types of traffic,
>>> as QUIC
>>> provides secure connectivity, multiplexed streams, and connection
>>> migration.
>>> Further, HTTP/3 supports an established request/response semantic that
>>> can be
>>> used to set up and configure services.
>>>
>>
>> The definition of QUIC as practiced in 2020 is "HTTP/3 over QUIC",
>> although we certainly see proposals for other application protocols over
>> something QUIC-like. Would something like
>>
>> "HTTP/3, carried over QUIC, is a good candidate protocol for tunneling
>> these types of traffic, as QUIC
>> provides secure connectivity, multiplexed streams, and connection
>> migration.
>> Further, HTTP/3 supports an established request/response semantic that
>> can be
>> used to set up and configure services."
>>
>> make that clearer?
>>
>>
>>> Using QUIC as a tunneling technology allows for proxying of both
>>> reliable stream
>>> (TCP) and unreliable datagram (UDP) flows.. For stream flows, QUIC
>>> streams
>>>
>>
>> I'm a little confused here, about whether (HTTP/3-)QUIC is also in scope
>> as a proxied protocol. Does everyone else know whether it is, and I'm just
>> catching up?
>>
>
> Well, it's just UDP, so yes.
>

:-)

Thanks!

Spencer


>
> -Ekr
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email