Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 28 January 2021 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 877873A13BA for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 05:09:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 D-mjvm8OcZxG for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 05:09:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 2DD633A13B7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 05:09:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:256a:c765:cd8a:1116] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:256a:c765:cd8a:1116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A268600065 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:08:53 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1611839333; bh=hqr35jgKnn2ooR6O2l6jbL59mktDYhvI3oRKicer8+Y=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To; b=XlI3B4k85e/3oIFf6XhB/Ki8QqcCKNTphN3uSOz0yrCX0gNsWTjj4eY1Bnx3ULiEQ SbgJwBB9GKOSQbXPJQwkHo0Z10l3cEa9UbSO6lhOmMW4T2UkGO+sKsKNi14JQGHukU GRm65TtFuz+Yee5Gjraf+0QxoN2GZ0JAB68XGhzA=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_74C11C5E-2AF0-4973-97F9-5DF7CDC33F25"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Subject: Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:08:52 +0200
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> <CAC8QAcc8E3G2r9tzggRgz5t8ZxeqpFu4dwg4bmoLH39DnBHV-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcc8E3G2r9tzggRgz5t8ZxeqpFu4dwg4bmoLH39DnBHV-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <9D6FDFBB-77E1-4AB9-84C2-376690A026DC@eggert.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
X-MailScanner-ID: 4A268600065.AE5DE
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/8KKO2GdsFdD5uebYj24H144gaNA>
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: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 13:09:09 -0000

Hi,

I've prepared https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/pull/192 in an attempt to address the comments received on the charter update.

- remove "if necessary" to make it more clear that the WG may do a new version of QUIC

- talk more generally about "a logging format" and tweak the wording for the second work area, to make it more clear that the listed things are non-exclusive examples of work items

- take David Schinazi's advice and remove the text about standards track

Please let me know if this is clearer, and should be merged into the text for the continuation of the discussion.

Thanks,
Lars