Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make SNI more clearly mandatory (#3326)

David Schinazi <> Wed, 08 January 2020 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA44120059 for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:23:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k_w8zU-K2hG6 for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02FC8120019 for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 10:23:04 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578507784; bh=02b1gGPXLrJkEcndA3dZdiRLKC82YLD/yEkeQw7czdg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=aqElfnxHNvd7HO1TYvarV377d2xWk3NSf7/1UEvyTxhIfWdexZDzpCx2gkwKbVrhO i/rB1axjQhWToMoe7uL7KlvDuEIuYDIxp3PgkVooQ7ZmN3FDB+vzKEHKAWOjiwGQlb YRvJEvVCjLUwnLMmSUhyvDYPqHMy2PwAZjo+wM+0=
From: David Schinazi <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3326/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make SNI more clearly mandatory (#3326)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e161e0826ba1_36c43f7f41ccd968973d6"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 18:23:07 -0000

DavidSchinazi commented on this pull request.

> @@ -312,11 +317,14 @@ an explicit port.
 ## Connection Establishment {#connection-establishment}
-HTTP/3 relies on QUIC as the underlying transport.  The QUIC version being used
-MUST use TLS version 1.3 or greater as its handshake protocol.  HTTP/3 clients
-MUST indicate the target domain name during the TLS handshake. This may be done
-using the Server Name Indication (SNI) {{!RFC6066}} extension to TLS or using
-some other mechanism.
+HTTP/3 relies on QUIC version 1 as the underlying transport.  The use of other
+QUIC transport versions with HTTP/3 MAY be defined by future specifications.
+QUIC version 1 uses TLS version 1.3 or greater as its handshake protocol.
+HTTP/3 clients MUST support a mechanism to indicate the target host to the
+server during the TLS handshake.  Unless an alternative mechanism for indicating
+the target host is used, clients MUST use the Server Name Indication (SNI)
+{{!RFC6066}} extension to TLS if the target host is a DNS name.

@ekr Do you think WebRTC would use HTTP/3? I was somewhat expecting WebRTC to build something directly over QUICv1, not over HTTP/3?

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: