Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document how a server cluster might be upgraded (#504)

janaiyengar <> Fri, 05 May 2017 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B867127B57 for <>; Thu, 4 May 2017 18:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.617
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RcjDwnf20XSX for <>; Thu, 4 May 2017 18:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C19F120046 for <>; Thu, 4 May 2017 18:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=D0wyqJ3IpPjpvVCOO1H3rRP7Ph8=; b=eXPIcUILChTxWJzx GqZq3Fdas6kU6pMpUYhiIN+ODfjWlXCYCBYynI4KuKjT+yCXe+IUkAiFH4vEJwPe e3R2yCWr51GrCEuU8TnbjWh5QEEwtpNfoyxRuAIS4QsqU0jKhlwys2eHdbLWy1wk pWROPadMEIZ4oQzJYiQGAClWr9E=
Received: by with SMTP id filter0837p1mdw1-16266-590BD876-5 2017-05-05 01:42:14.101692497 +0000 UTC
Received: from ( []) by (SG) with ESMTP id DfWQs8FPQAOZBS79oPh42g for <>; Fri, 05 May 2017 01:42:14.170 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 18:42:14 -0700
From: janaiyengar <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/504/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Document how a server cluster might be upgraded (#504)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_590bd876158fd_62903f9635035c2c826f8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3R3S/9U9nP8mtS0tueSjwVo8IkeucyRWY+Pv wsW0gWYGSq5kxNqC+qH9JRHz+rUGNf4UJlZrA8DpYXIuNFfCp2XFbSzDRMbHLZoDOAZo5x3t5jgYGh +CmTutKDNQOV10tN03sivaaF4K3N2IrKKu5v9eN1xU9HogDwymseklGChH3BBcrgzV0yvgw3oqvtWT A=
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 05 May 2017 01:42:16 -0000

I don't think we need to be documenting this. The implications to QUIC are straightforward -- a client receives a version negotiation packet -- but that's already expected. It's up to server deployments to figure out if this is cost they care to fix via more process for upgrades. Besides, different server deployments already have their own processes.

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