Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 26 January 2021 17:04 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 3E2523A0B05 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:04:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 oiH8jDUv92wM for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:04:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (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 0AF683A0AFB for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:04:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:101a:b030:44c8:aeed] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:101a:b030:44c8:aeed]) (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 0148A600073; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:03:58 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1611680639; bh=kxTxQ1g4KjgFZkhrbcFXixV11Z0gqrmmUwqPltmFpaI=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=m7oxjRR7tM6qDDUTxJS39vdUoCnv6E+FoeascdykVwE8GLkoVYCNfLsmRVKA3dBS+ Op+ks1AyDWWnhAXAGzMLd3HG9j8sWZbR1dMwFfHXdgkiQRR12iWEeY/I7S3ryQmTDI DbP1U3ll6Uwxz/TQ7wgTfJ7w9aAe202vLphkNbb8=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <D01160E4-C89E-4DF5-B0A7-C5138E33D9C1@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D60E1A5A-7416-4432-846D-A060313348B3"; 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: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:03:57 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20210126170048.GB364092@okhta>
Cc: quic@ietf.org
To: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
References: <CALGR9oaXpZp87ujmkDAO6Tuy=m-s8qKDY9-azpm_PhVAMfkq9A@mail.gmail.com> <20210126170048.GB364092@okhta>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
X-MailScanner-ID: 0148A600073.A030E
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/AiE-0oduHPAR4YBaDHgqk7y1jLc>
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, 26 Jan 2021 17:04:10 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-1-26, at 19:00, Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> wrote:
>> The second area of work is supporting the deployability of QUIC, which
>> includes specifications and documents, such as it applicability and
>> manageability statements, improved operation with load balancers, the
>> specification of a logging format and schemas for QUIC and HTTP/3 endpoints
>> (qlog), etc.
> 
> It would make the charter broader if the particular work areas were not
> itemized here.  This way, a future work item, such as the (or "a") loss
> bits extension (which obviosly addresses deployability concerns), cannot
> be shut down with: "it is not in the second area items list and thus the
> WG is not chartered to work on it."

that list is prefaced with "such as", which intends to express that those are non-exclusive examples. Do you have a suggestion how to make that clearer?

Thanks,
Lars