Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3

Lucas Pardue <> Thu, 06 May 2021 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEC43A274C for <>; Thu, 6 May 2021 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 cpy6__jceFCg for <>; Thu, 6 May 2021 09:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 587DA3A2749 for <>; Thu, 6 May 2021 09:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c22so6789883edn.7 for <>; Thu, 06 May 2021 09:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WaXnqjY4iEEHojx96WhWGmlRYv38A/9L8IAF9wMPKls=; b=IDXAunYVIWkV3Opdhksztddq6rppdrq7HOKP7h1Aq51LtXIAd1Vr6Vj9s9u02ULN0P EK9xtdgDUjp+4hWgP9BUVlkUmE9TZQBqNj0ly1ELRcEcVMD1dAgCoJE/l45S6BKOusgY wCOohjGw/5wXSy7eivMuFXmrq8iiWLm8/Uy4GWT3wb96WJCx/TUpL5Y9KW793vRxMGNx TGJ0vhH9c9vmVo1NCjyiTXxYLrGCbXIUBQrH4RARO/Mo0N0A+ZN0vctraprv1SKD7Az1 sVr9ZGS33pCXP5H5gc2KSeacJDqoBB3ZorDFI5J/vkatPanRcIKI/KmF/Bmn6RIZ12zP NHBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WaXnqjY4iEEHojx96WhWGmlRYv38A/9L8IAF9wMPKls=; b=r+3BTzIDQ2mMtz7ONXYEV72tBJgp4y/LIG3mw5l9wpe/+CFG+hrjCYFQIax1emX1Lm fRKHpztFUKlR8rfwpHh89046r72i1s/kUorxpVE20uSe1RnMJXi2ntc0H9RKAyAMyIyD lhPI4xfzEimgr25ITnA2owGDpW+7QojxW+bKb/Ga5s/BzHOrz1LxRceG5/C+FrTc757m Fp8O870Gw7xPcO3xItOCbg7xOJBCRCRevcifu+2b3dWv0tNE7rMP+n9d6A2WTVKDa/GS Z+3pllrjgbeNv+MxtqWLniyA2Oj8rRbLbQAD0cu7+npq+VUs23vooihiZfJDShoHNGMv h6dQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FlEb4e9X/Epi0s3qH3D1MBSOzIjFTbqtv4EO8cHFirr60Lay0 f8TEmsbaqXsJ3besDHctsHFaxXeZfgu12ZCIFC8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwqqEdMftpXTWcXR/DTrh5DalczN5ChPoLSBEwJxoIGAD/jZgd5QbfA79w5uOht2CtGTDAj4bDx9sJdDCz0AQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c655:: with SMTP id z21mr5185560edr.283.1620317173302; Thu, 06 May 2021 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 17:06:02 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Cc: QUIC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000089cab805c1ab7d8b"
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: Thu, 06 May 2021 16:06:18 -0000

Hi Spencer,

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:18 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> wrote:

> The QUIC working group could reasonably do a short Applicability Statement
> (
> <>
> 2026#section-3.2
> <>) that (as
> part of the RFC 2026 description)
>    An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way in which they
>    are to be combined, and may also specify particular values or ranges
>    of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be
>    implemented.  An AS also specifies the circumstances in which the use
>    of a particular TS is required, recommended, or elective (see section <>
>    3.3 <>).
> And THEN, we could just refer to one specification that explained what we
> mean when we say "QUICv1", or "core QUIC", or whatever we want to call it,
> and everyone would know what we mean, without having to guess. This would
> be especially helpful for participants in other SDOs, but not only for
> them.
> I'm not sure whether the QUIC community would ever advance QUICv1 to full
> Internet Standard, when it would become eligible for a STD  designation
> that could include the relevant RFCs, but even if you do, that's probably
> years in the future (and a lot of successful IETF protocols don't advance
> beyond Proposed Standard).
> If that was the right thing to do, I'd be happy to knock out a -00. Please
> advise.

The document draft-ietf-quic-transport contains in the first paragraph of
Section 1:

>   QUIC is a secure general-purpose transport protocol.  This document
>   defines version 1 of QUIC, which conforms to the version-independent
>   properties of QUIC defined in [QUIC-INVARIANTS].

Subsequent paragraphs go on to explain how -tls and -recovery relate to the
-transport document. That seems to cover your goal of pointing people to a
single document explaining the relationships between documents. But if I'm
overlooking something please say.