IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Consensus call: should the Version Negotiation update RFC 9000?

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 26 September 2022 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@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 AD0DDC14CE27; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y7E0NVPQd-vv; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 653BBC152712; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id a5-20020a17090aa50500b002008eeb040eso13250315pjq.1; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=9fcBd1YDb/cjckLMpq7eeitL0msuE0vmZz4bDi1sFUw=; b=HOxKMIGlH9YLKHmFhlcGFEV92ZdQcaKisVqL5n2z5CjZmwh2NRygCJd26pFWA9p7gS jidC+6vHnyVkbXGZcWu176W4tpRkb+JH/mhQt1TJp2KWAK5tlA7Ia4SJLgsTj1Fv18Zj kZCqCBtjjbCG7ZNXqm7zfIb+7b8uXviaD0RGoXRJNMSrJC+QxUo+r+WKJtipPeRuE0uW pu3Q12jFy9nNi1WIqTCchzkPl2Kx6Mp3ulMgG1jpR3SNhTd7CxaOXg3le/Ly+/IxzQZ2 axbmIlveFkUiXjeLMAdabXFaLWL79oVzoyoz3nb5lTkajPxikp1Xt1audnk0sE9qgQ4s mZhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=9fcBd1YDb/cjckLMpq7eeitL0msuE0vmZz4bDi1sFUw=; b=umGk0uGkvwnputFiHscui2ig39OwP9OD3ZNsQ+bdIYrCa4wR1kZzkkk4oc8PlWnaO1 rvW2ss62Y91mWXN6qTFy0xrUdh2ft1tJp3H0r6HrT41ygBP3g4CiKf6wh4CyG+DUGDSO 1Rx//yr9eI7+/XHb+Yz8N41gKUY72NLcPIxLt8BqboV8iyAgijwQo3KEH5NOkSoJcGFp hiEKEDvrH/jRXbXUl+H4LW0XkrI9+8n+I9afb2+X5IE/ArUp5U3cRra+YaUN4hkp4Ghx CmyBYyBUQmw3NqFC+QAI2cFcnts6RStioWgFt+BRdWjOjb9A7sp/CP7iibAcNXhIJyQ3 WjCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2iPWCpmmfhMn80rHVFc84pFSmvmf+bG44YA9npK2SEo+xg840W p+OLUmB9XWEfP+Qpa1MtC7VGh+CzfuBevK+71c0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7AXNChg/WG4pI+NWXcOC0rLM00NDB8mJCywH6Dg/jj8WK4/2MzCoBLEq/4dAHDlPnatFXUYH9iXzeOh6Qk3aE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c94f:b0:178:4423:af05 with SMTP id i15-20020a170902c94f00b001784423af05mr24059549pla.147.1664222163366; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9oYRZSZ4zRGco5M-umBm96LDg_p2ckEVq4EEra-Uz3hDEA@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZbACAgkCUeea=0LqCLR9sGy0pStQppaR04gZphJKb48g@mail.gmail.com> <CADdTf+juw0bsP+KvsOARQZTA9-xMoUkw-0H7TCqj5T4UwJnPpQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADdTf+juw0bsP+KvsOARQZTA9-xMoUkw-0H7TCqj5T4UwJnPpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:55:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+4jbO_3=-r+2derv5zFLjUZ7w8Ci3C74TkTrgjx7N95+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus call: should the Version Negotiation update RFC 9000?
To: Matt Joras <matt.joras@gmail.com>
Cc: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, QUIC WG Chairs <quic-chairs@ietf.org>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dff6d705e999ea87"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/8rf5gh4rG4mCTfP259Z22JTEn7Q>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 19:56:13 -0000

Thanks Matt, I've written up this consensus as a PR:
https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/124
Let me know if I'm good to merge and submit a revised draft.

David

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:44 PM Matt Joras <matt.joras@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> To summarize the outcome, while the usage of the "Updates" tag across the
> IETF is generally not very consistent, the chairs believe that there is
> consensus for adding the "Updates" tag for RFC 8999, but not for RFC 9000,
> as the implications and precedent-setting of the latter are not as clear.
>
> Best,
> Matt Joras
> On behalf of the QUIC WG Chairs
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:48 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Gentle reminder that this call is still running for a few more days.
>> Please comment if you have an opinion.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lucas
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Sept 2022, 00:49 Lucas Pardue, <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello QUIC WG,
>>>
>>> As part of the AD review of the Version Negotiation draft [1], the
>>> question was raised about whether it should update RFC 9000; see issue #115
>>> [2]. As a reminder, an RFC can include an "Updates" tag that refers to
>>> another target RFC, the target in turn will receive an "Updated by" tag.
>>>
>>> Generally, the use of and meaning of the Updates tag can be ambiguous.
>>> There is no blanket rule to determine if an Updates tag is required for
>>> RFCs that extend QUIC. For example, we didn't add one for QUIC bit grease
>>> [3].
>>>
>>> Our responsible AD, Zahed, has asked for a consensus call to determine
>>> whether the Version Negotiation draft should include an Updates tag or not.
>>> This is the start of a two week consensus call, it will conclude on
>>> 2022-09-24, End of Day, Anywhere on Earth.
>>>
>>> Please respond on the issue directly [2], or in response to this email.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lucas
>>> On behalf of the QUIC WG Chairs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] -
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-09
>>> [2] - https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/115
>>> [3] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9287.html
>>>
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email