Re: WGLC for Datagram Extension

Eliot Lear <> Fri, 17 September 2021 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85BD3A13C1; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.89
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZjP0kGMzJdFz; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFA683A13BD; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::1] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:1]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 18HAsdUl167175 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:54:39 +0200
Authentication-Results:; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=upstairs; t=1631876080; bh=HznUrxEv/87L7jd/iv0zOFRO607fxZgYFDasTX+MYvU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MzFwHP6TxuHQwTTdDJ/0ziyadI5NB73pNKamvci04MQDsNfmspXXKm+YF7qSofnub dlQNMfJp4c5AYFnLKnZWbbnD/cS9TU5NNSaiRUuN9Z5joOCp8rP5IGUtlhap4DNt6J 3WR1GXxyWaxQLlCVR6LXoexFiCrEgD/bwrj+HLro=
Subject: Re: WGLC for Datagram Extension
To: Tommy Pauly <>, Martin Thomson <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:54:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="egEgqOSwCCSBJLH5iOyhSBq6Lqnoqj7Og"
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: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 10:54:51 -0000

Ok, thanks for this.

I would further suggest that an example flow be included; even if it is 
just two or three datagrams.  Showing it all in operation is always helpful.


On 17.09.21 02:05, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> Agreed that the word “strongly” can simply be removed.
> Applications using QUIC can choose to associate particular datagrams 
> with data sent on a stream—like HTTP/3 choosing to add a value 
> calculated based on stream IDs into the payload of the DATAGRAM 
> frame—but such associations do not belong to the transport protocol.
> <>
> Thanks,
> Tommy
>> On Sep 16, 2021, at 4:48 PM, Martin Thomson < 
>> <>> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021, at 07:00, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>> DATAGRAM frames belong to a QUIC connection as a whole, and are not
>>>> strongly associated with any stream ID at the QUIC layer
>>> What does "strongly associated" mean in this context? Apologies if this
>>> is well trodden ground.
>> This is unfortunately so well-trodden that this text was added 
>> without consideration for people who weren't involved in the 
>> trampling process.
>> I think that "strongly" can be struck here, it's working too hard. 
>>  And smart people will latch onto it.
>> Context:
>> When we use DATAGRAMs in HTTP (and likely in other contexts) there 
>> will be a need to bind each DATAGRAM to a (request) stream.  That's 
>> necessary to ensure that flows of DATAGRAMs can be routed by gateways 
>> and the like along with the stream.  There were lots of debates about 
>> how to manage that binding and the layer at which it would be 
>> documented.  This text is likely intended to record the conclusion 
>> that this document definitely isn't where that sort of binding 
>> occurs, but for someone without that history.  It doesn't really 
>> achieve that though and because it doesn't need to (why would you 
>> think that any association exists?), it ends up being distracting.