[quicwg/base-drafts] Generalizing QUIC to allow underlying tranports other than UDP (#4061)

John Ericson <notifications@github.com> Fri, 28 August 2020 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF343A152E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.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 kSB0xLgKv41D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0213A152C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f144ac1.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f144ac1.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8986E340750 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1598585963; bh=BgPgRtssePyMOe9ort9Jwck0CSWUbBdYJ5QiMlKn9WQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=FXYchm8HtBTDss9P8iqhBUSNJrbWSf2AOgFMDlz2CDt49cGOc3L6TUkpinwdRlFUo 6iTa4twasZ6j7qJ/gpvW0S9C7ynhskHAUYg1qLjNFjzHWXnTPZmlRs2ZzOhVQw2hkK g1pdTKyF9la2gUkHfkegH88Oj/rdIIqAe+X6I1dI=
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:39:23 -0700
From: John Ericson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5VK7EQXTGU4R6KLD55KROWXEVBNHHCR7KE5Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4061@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Generalizing QUIC to allow underlying tranports other than UDP (#4061)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f487c6b7a285_278c196431565a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: Ericson2314
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/DFzLBFLYPjbrtsMHhe3xpn9Hqe4>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 03:39:26 -0000

In https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/fWbftfhTopjo6O2YjIZZwRQ92GM/ I questioned whether QUIC should be standardized requiring the underlying transport to be UDP.

The main thrust of my argument was that even assuming virtually QUIC usage in practice would be over IP, we might get a nicer RFC text by being somewhat open-ended and instead being forced to spell out the relevant properties of the underlying transport.

The response was mostly skeptical, but with just allowing that it might work out that I started an attempt in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4043 

Since then, @MikeBishop brought up that other transports might actually be useful in practice, like:
 -  Message-based Websockets across an HTTP proxy
 -  Local datagram sockets for IPC

-- 
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/4061