Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC Version Ossification (#2496)

Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com> Thu, 17 October 2019 16:56 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 497F3120AC2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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: 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 cuRpwKFB_W0y for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB84120ABA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63079C606A5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1571331407; bh=/2lNdbpGh4fddhBTWh1FCVl9nCaFJpFF1JH7Jw1LPlo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=bGdAScj9JMBOmvvaRQFFUy2dAlCuVFEPjMcghFuWi6qAHqmb/9IZFrTNJ2HDDgwRP IbulQHx5W28NgWMXIjd4K07i3rLtQCHwzOyQdADR3V9HDyBHagZjMMA1+NoIOjhClU ICsLepPqojN6Zm7Rrw9RCC7FIiAjk0nFQeddumeQ=
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:56:47 -0700
From: Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZBYU6Z32JUST6T6EN3WXO57EVBNHHBRWZGVA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2496/543267154@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2496@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2496@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC Version Ossification (#2496)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5da89d4f5477f_5c973fc0b24cd968244143"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: RyanAtGoogle
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/KfwstnIbjtC3k-JdVbLFXI__X20>
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: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:56:50 -0000

By "Grease the version number field", I think we agreed that out-of-band, the server can communicate an alternative version number and alternative salt which can be used for future connections. Does that sound right to you?

-- 
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/2496#issuecomment-543267154