Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 27 January 2021 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.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 7A6883A0AFB for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 08:15:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 PFUWPHcf1mwQ for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 08:15:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) (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 0CA133A0AFA for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 08:15:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com with SMTP id r32so2530322ybd.5 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 08:15:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=W4QYz1HxcTzMdyLDWZrhQhl6rMTCJmkcpDYbjDGTL18=; b=SiP8DSR8uSubJ0AR94i+1t9CIFFkln3vbecDQCpIdO+zURMfxSsNnH1DfKdci312+H PyJzCk0tozgz4Z++5VL5tP8cZNpk+fIO3nAcgzxiXQWVLnr9a9+BazKO/sXRJT2qN321 6qXg3gpOSVxPfAx1mLO4lhoRyJxq3363oXAdR8RNev2fl7fgiRNPiTpWk9MU1I6Gz5tZ 76SLp3pm1MGGBun8PdsX6DLhCGvU1gwe8Exl6jsT0g7522bYL0nASXonzEDuSiDYs3aB If39WUW+g6pas9NlVRNwSek0cn4jZBjaWJAF4NXmZ7QYfQlc7+tBCQwjC+haBTGwV3lC xc5w==
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W4QYz1HxcTzMdyLDWZrhQhl6rMTCJmkcpDYbjDGTL18=; b=O/TEWoaFzaGXdoGVh1uC8CGdUCwR1TpxmNHxGoHUFpNXJ73EZqWT3aKXAV5VN2aG8u GDI2ngDWG6UniWAuAeZdt7P96x8016Iqm/EWArvoKZ86rtEbAw5HJdw7d0U24x5CtpAE r7OaBoWAV4JSs4Na9bBHxA5F+fVNdMglAQ13bY7xoetrKUlWIYNaEKbymek5OrU8NuWF T4xlYBnKiuM7NuDx/qv+FrsO1ktCwTUy6sFGGIEc/6pd0j1jwOltwMs99ie4RR41dzye pVi1JBVNyPcsFTg+wCHhAfPWuv0Uoss/tqIyu2L64TDqmgMqRTwh3J88wRPBILCd/XW4 /cBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533HwzBB0xsE/PSsqi1XEDZtjuOWnMH8w1yypWSf+ueUqN8l/QDk P8QZMm7wiQ9RXGsYcOMZK6CCPoGlyDIKtdTqWJM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbVZCFrYIrV8uPHxGEEMSU/yS1EA3wgW+5KWyz3gcwzo8R4ZpJOnPmvsbc5U5logERZia+WQ4gP/nO4OL6Fq4=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d183:: with SMTP id i125mr15883442ybg.411.1611764131293; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 08:15:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9oaXpZp87ujmkDAO6Tuy=m-s8qKDY9-azpm_PhVAMfkq9A@mail.gmail.com> <20210126170048.GB364092@okhta> <D01160E4-C89E-4DF5-B0A7-C5138E33D9C1@eggert.org> <20210126170932.GC364092@okhta> <CALGR9oaO8Q7TC9zyajM20gZkZPR1cRDSv-SeDqo0MfaQbgfAjg@mail.gmail.com> <20210126184815.GD364092@okhta> <CAKcm_gNXkCko=H3VofwnubMDctCN7Smx0LDbH-ruYcTk7S4kTg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDSy+4kVyrvmkd8vDOzASV36Y2iR2HEGzrSkxXJaMmED6JDww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+4kVyrvmkd8vDOzASV36Y2iR2HEGzrSkxXJaMmED6JDww@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:15:20 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcc8E3G2r9tzggRgz5t8ZxeqpFu4dwg4bmoLH39DnBHV-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000081eca905b9e41400"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/2EuTndsHDqHf7FgKKZtc8hG9o-4>
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 Jan 2021 16:15:33 -0000

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:54 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm supportive of the overall direction of this rechartering, with some
> concerns though:
>
> 1) multipath is not mentioned in this charter - based on the conversations
> we've had over the past months, I think we should be explicit about whether
> multipath is in or out of scope
>
>

+1

I think it should be explicitly mentioned. I don't see why not?

Behcet

> 2) +1 to Ian and Dmitri's comments about mentioning current examples in a
> way that seems to preclude other extensions, we could remove the examples
> to help clarify
>
> 3) I was surprised by "Extensions intended for Standards Track need to
> have general applicability to multiple application protocols." and I don't
> think our charter should preclude these. We shouldn't ban standard-track
> protocols that require a QUIC extension to function properly. Perhaps
> another way we could phrase this would be to say that "The QUIC WG is only
> chartered to work on extensions that have general applicability to multiple
> application protocols. Extensions that are specific to an application
> protocol should be defined in the WG responsible for that protocol, in
> consultation with the QUIC WG." -- without stating anything about Standards
> track.
>
> 4) It seems off to me to simultaneously declare HTTP/3 logging in-scope
> and HTTP/3 out-of-scope. I think qlog is useful, but if we want to use it
> outside of the QUIC transport protocol then maybe it should live in another
> WG.
>
> 5) "Maintenance and evolution of the QUIC base specifications" isn't very
> clear to me - does that mean that working on future versions of QUIC is in
> or out of scope?
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:00 PM Ian Swett <ianswett=
> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> In the past, I felt there was quite a bit of resistance to accepting new
>> documents not explicitly listed in the charter, which makes me share some
>> of Dmitri's concerns.
>>
>> Mentioning qlog specifically made me a bit nervous, because the other
>> examples were worded broadly enough that they could encompass different
>> drafts if needed.
>>
>> Minus that concern, LGTM.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:48 PM Dmitri Tikhonov <
>> dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, hopefully that's how it works out in the end.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>   - Dmitri.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 05:27:11PM +0000, Lucas Pardue wrote:
>>> > Waiting for the new documents to get proposed and adopted, as a new
>>> > precedent for future work in this area doesn't IMO help much. We
>>> already
>>> > have precedents, which I trust the WG to be capable of applying without
>>> > being too literal.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Lucas
>>>
>>>