IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Ericson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 03 September 2020 14:41 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 7EE933A1057 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 0leXyMa__HYZ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F79F3A0FA9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B94E1EE7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1599144046; bh=1MulTY3Pz5IVq0ODkQiZuRLOHUpr5gWjqMN/ijqgTbo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=D+JWmB/3uz58U4/qUZoESjhqfG/kt+KU3lj1c36j+euNlr5XHNLvRBfFkN99XlY8T V0e5gLLIICGy668eepcMduG5PJIJLW8q+DkorXgMISGam/2/qpB9BAVTblgeYhNIJS bwHeBPIhmf77AQlrM6LBO8WfbLAzU1RLOrAFa6tw=
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 07:40:46 -0700
From: John Ericson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6A2HZTGNGG3MSK2FV5LTQW5EVBNHHCR7KE5Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4061/686538966@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4061@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4061@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Generalizing QUIC to allow underlying tranports other than UDP (#4061)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f51006ed2d15_70e119f01748b2"; 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/n-mTVA67ZVLAGwo6peJ3tJfSY58>
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, 03 Sep 2020 14:41:09 -0000

@DavidSchinazi 

> Could you elaborate on how we might end tying QUIC too closely to UDP? I'm not sure I see how renaming things would help.

One thing I noticed is that while most of QUIC is agnostic to the addressing format, the packet advertising the new address is rather not extensible, being isomorphic to `(Optional<(Ipv4, Port)>, Optional<(Ipv6, Port)>)` (in pseudo-Rust), rather than some sort tagged enum that would be more extensible.

> Given that, I am going to close this issue at this point, as we are certainly not going to be able to recharter before shipping v1.

Makes sense. Hopefully, my fears are unfounded and the generalization can happen later such fine. Thank you all for your feedback.

-- 
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#issuecomment-686538966

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email