Re: Proposal: Run QUIC over DTLS

Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <> Tue, 13 March 2018 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F7212D94D for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 9sS1kMrq0qyw for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F894126DFB for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l12so2067211ioc.10 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3EDzKijBJOYiemVIf01xMMhJ4RKFPjDxqRrZykiuLgo=; b=YFiaEwNvRK4iHmG/UUp64XGbbpO39QBg3yEv3P8nXCicvjpXKhzQRfP7qXULqM37ud py7Fl8iPugj4HBO/3VvGMrmXrkAyypvSTeLkbATomAe/chTbNXMAqxTNjVqduGfa0GB7 a4Z5PfPoY0TOA/o02sCPzyVkR7TPs/d5ugqNvXj1QT4bN6hh2dYjJWuQJX4zmNDOydDF TvjLkKQw9Javwy9BNFp14/4+C0xd+nYaXdWvULUfK/pgN+ZTansv5yi57zpFRUnDtwLL rI7MuxwxnqyJ1yZGwYkTIZ/or6DOtdLGQKBKcdOR0nqWO2n5kaDsUkzjJ3Q/3DvCCrHz gx5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=3EDzKijBJOYiemVIf01xMMhJ4RKFPjDxqRrZykiuLgo=; b=H8uS3p7tBrK2QrmVZbFaHO3pSBNgckPD02vQEj9lJ2CgbwTXwI5mZXimHHg50TAfWR rFZfIW108Q8J/ZzmA5B2ac9wl6Nb35y0jwc828RtKxrjP/h+fdy78d9Aboi8uwKI22lX d8QedWGqQWyhMa6kllSzJS7iR0vEdXwcSOcM3nHWavsazWRisQquEtVBEnBcgRTH7+gh 8L3VpLJOG1gZxo3fChq6zB1Dw2FdWtcdzi0JP/5f5eA6Q7zIgpQts/JGMO/VTdsRPRNH HIQIwj55TrkrjmJKeAN2S/A7wPUtJJ+CWLjrf86UWdqcqSL/F9/NfoTZtfoNDYWdbLJ5 j7sQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FEjImM6wJxcQ6iisvc5uDNDQBe+DpDidZl/HfzNwF6bJHNuDTo /Bc+q/cx0CI6ZQZC09HaPrk876S+3HW7lrLx8gc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu8M9KA3He+LdUKuJulgxUZmqQqzH2KEo3jZIaYwDj/l1BdBNOwIhhViOl4C9n2uHdr+JrrbyjW+GL+gkxzpLE=
X-Received: by with SMTP id h69mr2578451ioh.209.1520982071717; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:01:10 -0700
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mikkel_Fahn=C3=B8e_J=C3=B8rgensen?= <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Airmail (420)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:01:10 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Run QUIC over DTLS
To: Eric Rescorla <>, IETF QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140f5e61833630567533ccd"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 23:01:16 -0000


On 13 March 2018 at 17.53.40, Eric Rescorla ( wrote:

[0] Arguably, we already have two transports, QUIC and UDP, but nobody
is bothered by that. My argument here would be that from the
perspective of QUIC, DTLS is a lot more like UDP than it is like a
real transport.

Actually, I am bothered. I think it is fine and necessary to use UDP, but I
really would like to see

the protocol be defined as independent of the lower layers as possible.
Endpoint chosen CID’s is

a move in that direction, but tuple specific routing is not, and preferred
IP in transport is also not

(useful as it may be). Incidentally, moving some concerns to a lower layer
can help with that iff that

part can be opted out or replaced easily, but not if it means added
dependencies that are impossible

or impractical to evade.