From nobody Tue Jan 12 07:44:16 2021 Return-Path: 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 3C1CF3A0983 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:44:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 rlJmJSy4B2Jz for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:44:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 F238C3A096C for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:44:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id e22so4979435iom.5 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:44:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=syg7EQG8aEC2qJxbYa2nXQY8ocFqbbk7R7xy4YOPxcs=; b=KE4B268hHTN3SPWX9OA+FFBe+Ad/EftUCQtoUqoONbpXB0aT5eq0PgBn4Lov7+dwo4 TV2RJ1CC7k6crJ/VvZuzqXdTsHKGyv0TKJ386gCg6FV0vrBL/aDIfvyD2w4HfyGxp5hw 5a15Yxyjk53uE09sBZb9yx6ha0/aUM7hOL/WCUgWtx2jAJLPc9qaQS8xdtimTjsb5ffc aEqfSHu4kaihBsynkje/GJy8Orx3/hC33jNupH0IKflxGUMNEm3sIwKzCJtSxiIWOIFI 7YRpGmwE3n6BntZENiD/hVe4+oycfUJ4zzbjPwTjm7r98pD5a871xIsWYk2QyJqABkN5 cNJg== 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=syg7EQG8aEC2qJxbYa2nXQY8ocFqbbk7R7xy4YOPxcs=; b=O1m5tzkNHgVWAEEZGW9MzioSrvWbZapEMdl/FA99q/IjMoOqI94mSgKQE+JWlbq/f4 sDTJ4yQLX0WbQO91OTGpSO58OJKBWN/EiEcRIuIuERn/aVgIbxawvMKvq8TjXOwhjArv ZqHrWaJnr2N3Wx7Fmvy9TcxD+p+i2/vrOM4OlBiV5iaXV4+7Xqmnfb55pi5yPwgIXLlk 2yJ+F9hVP5RttbaZHDu+vT4CsvhXbml168DQNMLzAQtVwTwBI/ml39zvcpMeVmUyNwyN vlnxGT2P+VkkICefH0W8d8EnHzoukMyJGH9SOfD7ARwrCViEIykh7RkEWEoBk+cs/bvu uGjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533egKEPEPRHdaLLaK00mhq2yrrMZJjJ3PIQjLzb32x1nj9wD5DL 7SdHeLgBgU/FOZF2y3HD7m+SSxfWXEY1nLej8FA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlNXPT2hi+/vyRVRzUPTpK74E5IPefoI6O3idv9KpP575skt1mBd4CLPP7qanDpA3+F9LaIJhI3SfnmSyoY4w= X-Received: by 2002:a02:a88a:: with SMTP id l10mr4671722jam.95.1610466252409; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:44:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <26f18d06-c03e-c77f-5079-f742a32cd0fc@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <26f18d06-c03e-c77f-5079-f742a32cd0fc@gmx.de> From: Martin Duke Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:44:12 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HTTP Delays To: Julian Reschke Cc: IETF QUIC WG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e5cf7405b8b5e49c" Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org 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: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:44:14 -0000 --000000000000e5cf7405b8b5e49c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Julian, I believe the intent was to request expedited processing on the QUIC docs. Maybe that doesn't make any sense if we're waiting for HTTP/3 -- or maybe we'll ship one without the other. That's what I'm waiting to clarify. On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:13 PM Julian Reschke wrote: > Am 11.01.2021 um 21:56 schrieb 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. > > We are trying to get to WGLC in the next few days. > > > This suggests that there will be significant delay (best case, months) > > between QUIC and HTTP/3 finalizing as RFCs. > > In theory, once all of the specs are in the RFC Editor Queue, the IESG > could ask the RPC nicely to fast-track the HTTP specs so that they do > not delay the QUIC specs. > > > ... > > Best regards, Julian > > --000000000000e5cf7405b8b5e49c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Julian,

I believe the int= ent was to request expedited processing on the QUIC docs. Maybe that doesn&= #39;t make any sense if we're waiting for HTTP/3 -- or maybe we'll = ship one without the other. That's what I'm waiting to clarify.
=

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:13 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 11.01.2021 um 21:56 schrieb = Martin Duke:
> I was disappointed to realize that quic-http has two normative
> references (httpbis-cache and https-semantics) that are not even in WG= LC.

We are trying to get to WGLC in the next few days.

> This suggests that there will be significant delay (best case, months)=
> between QUIC and HTTP/3 finalizing as RFCs.

In theory, once all of the specs are in the RFC Editor Queue, the IESG
could ask the RPC nicely to fast-track the HTTP specs so that they do
not delay the QUIC specs.

=C2=A0> ...

Best regards, Julian

--000000000000e5cf7405b8b5e49c--