Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] introduce a version alias mechanism (#2573)

Marten Seemann <> Mon, 01 April 2019 06:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACF3120094 for <>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 23:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WMumBCZaSgvr for <>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 23:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C87012008D for <>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 23:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 23:04:39 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1554098679; bh=iiijeCl6dLiPRzASFCH1ktJzOYAaVRielJ+ooQtnQgs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=HJJ0YmCoEHrVipRfVc+DNDzQRrDzdnm19Ezq/5FsfhkhZUaGyBMiHCrlzm6gNsGaU tPL9XZfLyeQKKPBJVvOjyj7F5/eriD6HsLUTRbQkf45ZcTAWk/UK8rwYwydZ9ML7qn qMuj7xPYLUTkiwp0RB+rugtArQeM3caE6mCDN3fY=
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2573/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] introduce a version alias mechanism (#2573)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ca1a9f7c26b1_7e773fa46b0d45b82731f9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 06:04:42 -0000

> If we are to start running v2 as soon as (or even before) v1 gets finalized, possibly with an anti-ossification scheme like this (that comes along with downgrade protection), then I do not think we need to discuss inclusion of this PR in v1?

I disagree with that. Just because this mechanism isn't perfect, doesn't mean that it's not valuable in preventing ossification. And, as @mikkelfj pointed out, middleboxes can **always** just drop packets they don't like, so no mechanism will ever be perfect.
Preventing ossification of the version number is valuable no matter if v1 or v1 and v2 are rolled out at the same time. In addition, should designing v2 take longer than we hope now, this mechanism will hopefully get middleboxes used to the fact that valid QUIC traffic actually uses the whole range of version numbers.

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