Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:20:54 -0800
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/87/269046886@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/87@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/87@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC advertisement description (#87)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_585d9536f1a80_5d103f7ebbec5134160554";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/9MjnA-gsfJDaC8CXSWneME_rTMo>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org


----==_mimepart_585d9536f1a80_5d103f7ebbec5134160554
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've posted a PR for the transport/TLS layers (#99) that describes what I think the version negotiation model could look like to solve this.  There may (for better or worse) still be some value in having the hint in Alt-Svc.

If a client *is* able to reuse the 0-RTT context it got from TLS/TCP with QUIC+TLS, then having the correct version from the start is the key to first-time 0-RTT.  If the 0-RTT context isn't portable (or isn't sufficient, e.g. the STK is missing), it still gets us mostly-guaranteed 1-RTT setup instead of 1-2 RTT, which is worth something.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/87#issuecomment-269046886
----==_mimepart_585d9536f1a80_5d103f7ebbec5134160554
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>I've posted a PR for the transport/TLS layers (<a href=3D"https://gith=
ub.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/99" class=3D"issue-link js-issue-link" dat=
a-url=3D"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/99" data-id=3D"1974=
26251" data-error-text=3D"Failed to load issue title" data-permission-tex=
t=3D"Issue title is private">#99</a>) that describes what I think the ver=
sion negotiation model could look like to solve this.  There may (for bet=
ter or worse) still be some value in having the hint in Alt-Svc.</p>
<p>If a client <em>is</em> able to reuse the 0-RTT context it got from TL=
S/TCP with QUIC+TLS, then having the correct version from the start is th=
e key to first-time 0-RTT.  If the 0-RTT context isn't portable (or isn't=
 sufficient, e.g. the STK is missing), it still gets us mostly-guaranteed=
 1-RTT setup instead of 1-2 RTT, which is worth something.</p>

<p style=3D"font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&m=
dash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre=
ad.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href=3D"https://github.com/quic=
wg/base-drafts/issues/87#issuecomment-269046886">view it on GitHub</a>, o=
r <a href=3D"https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWbkq9srL2=
w9wB2gxD8lfRXy8s99Wh9Bks5rLDs2gaJpZM4LPPhA">mute the thread</a>.<img alt=3D=
"" height=3D"1" src=3D"https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWbkq5Kjov=
43ULdHRgvq0vqZJcVriuMJks5rLDs2gaJpZM4LPPhA.gif" width=3D"1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype=3D"http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop=3D"action" itemscope itemtype=3D"http://schema.org/ViewActi=
on">
  <link itemprop=3D"url" href=3D"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/is=
sues/87#issuecomment-269046886"></link>
  <meta itemprop=3D"name" content=3D"View Issue"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop=3D"description" content=3D"View this Issue on GitHub"></me=
ta>
</div>

<script type=3D"application/json" data-scope=3D"inboxmarkup">{"api_versio=
n":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name"=
:"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/quicwg/base-drafts","title":"=
quicwg/base-drafts","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"http=
s://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6=
-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubuserconte=
nt.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","=
action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-dr=
afts"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@MikeBishop in=
 #87: I've posted a PR for the transport/TLS layers (#99) that describes =
what I think the version negotiation model could look like to solve this.=
  There may (for better or worse) still be some value in having the hint =
in Alt-Svc.\r\n\r\nIf a client *is* able to reuse the 0-RTT context it go=
t from TLS/TCP with QUIC+TLS, then having the correct version from the st=
art is the key to first-time 0-RTT.  If the 0-RTT context isn't portable =
(or isn't sufficient, e.g. the STK is missing), it still gets us mostly-g=
uaranteed 1-RTT setup instead of 1-2 RTT, which is worth something."}],"a=
ction":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/=
issues/87#issuecomment-269046886"}}}</script>=

----==_mimepart_585d9536f1a80_5d103f7ebbec5134160554--