IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Identifying our deliverables

Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com> Tue, 30 October 2018 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mikkelfj@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 23287130DD1 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 07:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Uf6RUySOz4pq for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 07:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x130.google.com (mail-it1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (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 D6730129C6A for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 07:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x130.google.com with SMTP id e74-v6so13893184ita.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 07:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JKO8SVpcZc65vm8Bx+yA+an6VD9WPoKzlToc+adja0Q=; b=fYJvj59JxnTrhGKVUId2vQ2YnHnKJjb/iJRmcgL2JNh7pGbft9QfnPmFJdrxncH7cm yOS1FpFiWP1xakrh1ezgxhF+6DFpAySGwRd9t7PwbeXmUe6GJOEkL8jd3gkyPdRhpzIH ZY7jKrEg33GMqo8duejrwhMEcD2qGFLPgeUow9O+b0i/X+d3rQ3iVPRbOYB5te3MkjbX mpxhCF+dDuP9azZs8bxB1/KxoofqglX6d3hhUeHOngReexlB99dZ3rfuf9ptsDOBQXdN bZopUCBez/JNtxCOkypn4LWlFDsLdAR/wvVLlQLHm6jmq+JVL/79GJnXWoYy2c/4ozXM 077A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JKO8SVpcZc65vm8Bx+yA+an6VD9WPoKzlToc+adja0Q=; b=fdOfHs9SjEmgpPrkf8HeS5KCo8jGOr7/omHoej7o5QgkBkFWsKVaotV5b4DhUgFRo9 rQZXUt3QOqKc3CpnuTihVfDWu9XdjnzAZI0fYjJF4DbbA+JwTwCVkyLQhNWTbQnmA+wd WzbQBLrm0QaF2toRHXr8Ge/SymslzvZX++JrJE80ufGvWR2k60Gu+VJfsOEvqbJPHtHw eU/QvuBwz3+/Oa8H7vFeakHjpyTxWcPdBHy7B6dBWmhYn2Wm7idNZuIFlcJrkpzwbjNJ 1ULE/SRbQgv4yjHMIjJPagV5ZmCrEklJusNm0hpwgpegVnJ0b8BX+2cFoNORdGoz+gQZ 6FGg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gI8pnnBgkPy6JyW2SkAMl2CsUnMCOINH2/kGSzvmkU6F8j6Vh0K Y2ymBm8+fcjenZHG0luqCrshPaLIhK/rtmsFss0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eYM8S6FAQXeeU6vnwU/gsnOJHNLo6mZbcKkC3zBQZ0ZsV0Qe/v0bWhK1+clNtD0XnfcU1Cx+5ceSjn3NiEJno=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:cd02:: with SMTP id l2-v6mr1482668itg.70.1540909724051; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 07:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 07:28:43 -0700
From: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9oZSj0GSa=3EVFt27=DLahqJj+qS0nUSfqFNf+NWnEbsLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <578BB4EC-421E-4B21-AA14-B545A41754C8@mnot.net> <20181030052133.GA29963@1wt.eu> <CAKcm_gNbQyvAOVsg7wCj+M83Thsj+=KJD0QGLcq42-RAwhTf=g@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZSj0GSa=3EVFt27=DLahqJj+qS0nUSfqFNf+NWnEbsLg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Airmail (420)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 07:28:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAN1APdeKSWYFgtiKT-=eQ0=o+Mm6pyFeY00trd+SMLKNdVofxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Identifying our deliverables
To: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bbaf3505797300e7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/8dCbiwS5l__exjD0fj_vtt9G_m4>
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: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:28:49 -0000

Recent edits in transport also use terms such as “This frame is only used
in the QUIC layer” which is slightly confusing when QUIC/HTTP is also a
(higher) level QUIC layer while “QUIC layer” refers to the transport layer
only, implicitly.

Mikkel


On 30 October 2018 at 15.26.19, Lucas Pardue (lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com)
wrote:

I echo Ian's thoughts, "HTTP over QUIC" doesn't work well as a term in
practice.

I support this change, using an incremental number is logical, and is
compatible with the ecosystem that expects an HTTP version number.



On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, 13:56 Ian Swett, <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf..org
<40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

> From a completely practical perspective, I support this because I can't
> tell you how many times I've had to explain the difference between the HTTP
> over QUIC mapping and QUIC the transport.
>
> And moving the HTTP over QUIC and QPACK documents to the HTTP working
> group seems like the right thing to do.
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:21 AM Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:30:55AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> > To address this, I'd like to suggest that -- after coordination with
>> the HTTP
>> > WG -- we rename our the HTTP document to "HTTP/3", and using the final
>> ALPN
>> > token "h3". Doing so clearly identifies it as another binding of HTTP
>> > semantics to the wire protocol -- just as HTTP/2 did -- so people
>> understand
>> > its separation from QUIC.
>>
>> FWIW I always thought that HTTP/3 should be its final naming -- just like
>> SPDY
>> became HTTP/2 -- for various reasons, one of them being encouraging
>> adoption
>> by the protocol being presented as the natural upgrade to the previous
>> ones
>> and not a competitor that's been there for some time and suddenly comes as
>> an RFC.
>>
>> H1 with 723x, then H2 with 754x have shown that it's not a problem to
>> cover
>> multiple areas with a common name and that the protocol itself is in fact
>> a
>> family of protocols and mechanisms. So QPACK will naturally fall under H3
>> just like HPACK naturally belongs to H2.
>>
>> Just my two cents,
>> Willy
>>
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email