Re: HTTP Delays

Ted Hardie <> Mon, 11 January 2021 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D2D3A121B for <>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:04:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SB5ay1aKw_tl for <>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:04:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 738AB3A1219 for <>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:04:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l200so36388oig.9 for <>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:04:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CcXdYWjNHt8caQMfy+O14UMBgmOGBj/T80ZmspoE4+I=; b=U3/htgY48wV8iykE+o2gLDBt3cQ57YsP848L6XbL1+7CyLL7LfazqL7jKCTabcGBdl 9XRinaB3X0pPnKA3qHshwEHnQA8bZh6eR/+/CfoeDDDj/J3zsgNKKQK5Lni299xRL8DW 7YAtUybE0fPp96t9UTGUynLXurbkg2YmsqERrpiYVA15TRQKOfyNM1+O12c+ZZTiRnGU /ov/zItvyWbbbcFy8HQ5sVX82S7OxFVnWtc1m3UX3E0UT1TCLVqIIHkYJgW5PRhy2qI9 zu7Irikm6sT4p5uB7MuiTdRReOTFacCUQXGl7XddcdqZVgvsqwjMukv9lJHksLtmTofm T5/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CcXdYWjNHt8caQMfy+O14UMBgmOGBj/T80ZmspoE4+I=; b=fiGV2eyLchCEm29880y8MSLMYlFMkt2S5RB0NVzVyyEkG9xAWnN3+NcUrK/f8EBqYY Qb5+1p+DQchhKQQKV+Emh0TUkcNs3XthCw5S+bjrqD3I8/BcHiwFsxDBo6QkO/4MA3ID KHjBCeHdwB+AVTGw/K43vuLm8B4FZ4NZ4oXxEkAKWQMVuavcfChgCMuEUEtrA7NZj/+9 qQEwts81umeJ52AFLQh/c6WbCYudeUnvwgYuasnnbvxsKDtH9/cS1ziznypey9I8EIJQ s3JX5oC0YfMzz/wdNbopSFu6p6/OivsmhxDzRMvlVHpuUvsaSL5l3Sda2RNdUv87bK8x b/HQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vcIwO9WVH0mt8TFAKW0W+CJxJ8S2a8AL5uNGKWw5JbiixKSqe oA8cdjbjJTiiPK/DShriR0DKWsgrIILukYdEnW4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJynzVf3NVNbVYay2Sua8nE8O+ly+J9HydZ4JorlqqNY2aSDYxzY8ddsJ12xhRFuCf5iKlUgfYgsmnutBClseF4=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4005:: with SMTP id x5mr448027oie.74.1610399056728; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:04:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:03:50 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: HTTP Delays
To: Martin Duke <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b9158905b8a63f60"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:04:19 -0000

Hi Martin,

The easiest way to handle this would be to have those included in the
downref registry.  That would allow the documents to proceed with a
reference to the drafts, rather than the final RFCs.  If the ADs are
confident that the -chache and -semantics will not change the elements that
are referenced by QUIC, then a second last call that highlights that point
(and basically nothing else) will unstick this.

As someone has been waiting for cluster 238 for quite a while now, I am a
big fan of not trying to wait until everything can go lockstep.  The
benefits have definitely not outweighed the costs for C238, and I don't
think they would here.  Downref it and go on with publication.

Just my opinion, of course.



On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:57 PM Martin Duke <>

> I was disappointed to realize that quic-http has two normative references
> (httpbis-cache and https-semantics) that are not even in WGLC.
> This suggests that there will be significant delay (best case, months)
> between QUIC and HTTP/3 finalizing as RFCs.
> How are we to handle deployment of this? Will there be endpoints operating
> QUICv1 with h3-29 or h3-32? Or have the chairs cooked up a maneuver to
> avoid this problem?
> Martin