IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?

Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ianswett@google.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8BAF3A0E64 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 CYRHbi2Dm5e0 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32c.google.com (mail-wm1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A1AD3A0E63 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id v19so3287402wmj.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/3R2j1nuvYPQNeoC6+AfAZ43d9Rq1duOx225QpaVlmk=; b=npHYnZSfwkhknUCYZc9PPUqUn1wVjhXf/aNs9hmf3IETcnDgEe+7dTio5K/4xzhz5z sQzHmYi4JUNUUve/NIqiVGpWJhFFid1ikx3DrSKnEWQbZXMYpKuZCqIJ9c1CWN/QMZ08 w9CmdjZzTf2q5ofjWBeBVEGRZTjX21QHDCkbjFO+ldrFsn0AByj6XIRZKAXGjnbx4qWJ EOZlJMmjOK6B9ZGvFDGQU9OcB8O4fyPiiOwhUoBIEDRqwCDn1xj0mPiExUJS9wwqnkIC 8xQ6OQ7lgOdjGymBgxPiO7i+BzYVczklmi7+pAMu8XqtPK2XYteY2NjGFjwY87VSsLUf 3PXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/3R2j1nuvYPQNeoC6+AfAZ43d9Rq1duOx225QpaVlmk=; b=k2NyA8AGov5GhhO7i7vdBxeaHAx5TrDwSCvMQ+qHpHvUJm23LCFIc3H8ZWBX7o3P7g oGhzWE5T50sAogmndMYbxHJuKHmK9r4RIpXex/KLsnXnqqop8DqipyfaD/NvSGixsgy3 WxzM98otwn5M+I+9XSOiN0wsNPd+ybvV2eF/jCTSF72WoV5YjgGM4/4QsLS9IHejAlfp ZZ82aNxDMvsl+2e/bHNGs6PaBtIHhBV+6PkhH2kHB2f5EygseKipXaMugRph5RyPjz23 YLbKbT/T8kMUypJN4tzVOJkO01ycMA2I9luzvCeCfRqUSFZFXx8awbRGZ1ESgpAstQFa bf3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ew3WPLeXEwTBZa2T1gqOHhEWiuDEWynjDtnxOlVCMEgI0Tg8E 6pYrly2ZMOMy1d8fecldxif7SpJmGI7k82W7K1bSAg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFEA0HkvUAWQF+ApZYFRv8DuY0M6RESuOGhhRaYCcF2LdYkoOtKRUDVSXRUlvYPfhCFfs5dt62SguOcpHURTI=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a905:: with SMTP id s5mr4461208wme.120.1590590057041; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxQBqfrz24riPQA_VGKcGp_TzW0pqb97KfFMtNdW9pUfDg@mail.gmail.com> <833A693C-62E6-4889-9954-FCE65A839A7C@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <833A693C-62E6-4889-9954-FCE65A839A7C@eggert.org>
From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 10:34:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gPMO2DtqvKucqVw0zDjSniSOmFD4p1Tp4YLjr9WSWdEUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000559cf505a6a21b36"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/-KKAH-eUO0_RwbdMMJ46p2maIf4>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:34:21 -0000

I was agreeing with MT, but I'm happy to see some more MUSTs added if
people feel that'd be helpful.

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 2:50 AM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2020-5-26, at 20:55, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
> > - This draft becomes fully normative on future versions of QUIC ("Future
> versions of QUIC MUST NOT mess with this format..."), or
>
> I agree that it MUST (heh) be normative. If that requires us to stick a
> 2119 keyword somewhere in there, your suggestion would work.
>
> Lars
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email