IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Masque] Proposed draft charter

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 11 February 2020 20:46 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 6CE6112083B for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:46:48 -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 gbqzija81390 for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) (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 2109412006F for <masque@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id c23so8035354lfi.7 for <masque@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:46:43 -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=87GnPgfW++WeAgrFJa4de1kHmQbPu9ar69bIQQB9eGc=; b=mqw/LtJLWL/waI+rumeAqmF6x2eGS0Xyyfo/iR3GnC0BmB9uBxTzkQNTPhSKy2tHGr GdN8QWFcyBfDJu5VLXGvTAJltAG2grQBcBlhbbjaLJHM2sgpdolGi0xM+eZppDTzaRxd Ew/zrqRPjXu70CxOCRy8VZqHfPugk5VgCPdmBM7bUrmm7lA2pvucFQBjBwyk5vdyvvKV y7LekC3GuvRSX7A6sTZ5dzKYCznF4U1Pze8jx7FidAKYYYW0Q6qSIddw+/hTZafK3VX2 yYXVc25hFU6gNHV3ieKy5l75kWNX6TMPnp9V+FWzt8TbObZumtFoNbIGQPxstsUBECkw jozQ==
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=87GnPgfW++WeAgrFJa4de1kHmQbPu9ar69bIQQB9eGc=; b=t7aSvJVE7wNlKbS8ulZT1Tqs5n2QMXublRmSRh5sc2gOYYT6JxU40lFcft8I6PpRZi 3F8zcBKNvVvUDwzyNh2Mk36N3f2C7BESR2WVfCKfG6iZZfTTsR4Vf6zJnhbUsBmsxl8Z kG+kefRjhj0lt3/AnO65MG3Q14otQfwJfUCmItSFtizpNbbZtciscGFLdkXaPJW10l6M HcgrfhKT4j44JoMUvZstx7So5sSenLFPb753Q9XrXn83cJXdvQay8f4Op+0IPtPA40LA L/kC2P/UFHmrx5gz28rGT9e6LnYSYeYE4F+qoFLZMYgwpxsSf8KzM6zATQH1wSAK9GNV ocNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVfOH119yikPwMvVSdMeTDZwlks161r71rar8vrgVaIqFMkJZzY JH5JyhY8CJA1amghGEJGIdfAxI/ILQJOEiE1k+Psyrgl
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzfUKy8GbiOZH+rzSOpjP56CZ363DEcFIVCya284Q30zLiO2TcLM+1NS6AWpfcKFeadlPM0jg3X0Y2WMgqu9AE=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c82:: with SMTP id 124mr4552615lfm.152.1581454002311; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:46:42 -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> <CAKKJt-cVzaxxBqgw6pdCLBjKX_4PnjiFx5bOd6DW_ABeHFVzXw@mail.gmail.com> <b2869056-fbf5-9ff9-6874-d723157772b6@huitema.net> <CABcZeBO=QJS8MDhAbVcUD_pPp5a0ULBLbFFs37oJvAN4_F9tWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBO=QJS8MDhAbVcUD_pPp5a0ULBLbFFs37oJvAN4_F9tWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:46:15 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-cSBRuA=PyCo_heV+za6Bc2a8dm+5-YNUT6HUXESjB6ig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "masque@ietf.org" <masque@ietf.org>, Eric Kinnear <ekinnear=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000957d8059e52f414"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/p6bUpjnwK8WnDTwqahrXh75_V0E>
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 20:46:49 -0000

Christian,

(top-posting) Thanks - you explained my question better than I asked it.

Best,

Spencer

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:25 AM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:26 PM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2/10/2020 7:18 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Actually, that's still not entirely clear. There are two ways of
>> connecting UDP: connected sockets, or full sockets. One is adequate for
>> proxying a Quic client: a Quic datagram stream is associated with a five
>> tuple on the proxy. The other is what you want for a Quic server: a Quic
>> datagram stream is associated with a 3-tuple on the proxy. It is not clear
>> to me whether we are speaking of one or the other.
>>
>> I assume that we are speaking about the five-tuple variant, which is
>> equivalent to a TCP connection. But this is not obvious from the charter.
>>
> I think we should specify the client->server piece first and see how that
> goes. The other one is harder and has more policy issues, as we found with
> TURN
>
> -Ekr
>
>> -- Christian Huitema
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email