IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 28 June 2017 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 6AB0512EC2A for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 EINz9_VfHram for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22e.google.com (mail-yb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22e]) (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 B4E34129413 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id b81so23640506yba.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kWr+roZZX6DJ4HLcawJwNc75J+deDskJ04Q4I9iUdgw=; b=Yh+4KR1pSXOk1EvjhuPe3QiTpjgtVeuHen4y7r7Zmlwc8sBBmEW+6+ctz4O5TX/C7x SNAl/0kGRB9KUG4Ago8mph8CxDuMvx5aVkMVZ9t0rUXg7IHIHoO941p61lixYRWXth7H N9bQkYK0mjs65OkfuvV/ljZKfXL1m3VevfFspGur23VsKaTrbBFjxtxlRhkr0XCJA9T5 6fq3VJza+oHCj8OlhiYPMvmzZaW0rL68R3eW96MkqmuW+xEU1/winohoQlXTW0Y3WSn4 59rWQKE+cVGpvz1QDsYV9l5W0FsHZfb7OwrLlku/m7pJEeNHMnxztCN2etEma/7c6VMh RDew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kWr+roZZX6DJ4HLcawJwNc75J+deDskJ04Q4I9iUdgw=; b=qCsKT5cS87ohyN3tK3k8DOb5KUGmCx4xjntShJweSFaySNKAc31KaYRGZsvBydrpPI e7eGLNO1lhpk9LB443yGCHt7XUsCpk0MAeBIsA+qAzRWWEQlTXzJHZiPcTEN7r2oMfPB MO+2vsA93vkgcsOvED9g1x2gn5GyBE64Fz4RqF+dQpYdIsH2TSa2zl6bWx/KJySNTj/3 Zd9v3JB5JaSx5+0xTmv9nvAwWLrIXszNsrf6IrqshsS27CoQYjzgodGi3AFa7hueQeDv Md/e0QJrVzpPfVHOUSzsq7fdoanEeqRuVTQBDYYlHX9c2bH6WvC2d1ND1kCzn5L/gl3X q2Zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOw/tqlpNFcwjRtvAV29u6awwF8KXqh/MQ4qeJmO2/yQjAoJgKoS XEjNIQ84pD62YJGRcib+WV+RJTkWnWjh
X-Received: by 10.37.118.210 with SMTP id r201mr10101885ybc.15.1498689813953; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.215.9 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNrH6NuFXa0P_kXsOM7+KhyP=pabN2y9nbCPdURgv2Ud1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOdDvNreiyrk1bpGc5Cu0OXyO1KDGk25USYM7jz5GpXQCdUpfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMat+zRrBG1WxiE0O7owDqksR8-JAujPxPOT89p3TgtQw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gNALLfD7fbpLs=bjFP9oOpx_efJndNtsKT21S5ADDYn1w@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUD3tRdci95TgGqg4xPZeV=knCug=EoNw-S+3oatx_G8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNrH6NuFXa0P_kXsOM7+KhyP=pabN2y9nbCPdURgv2Ud1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:42:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOviRK=-WK=WOOT7d92hJLMJNp2fWYZAYUiWoq-9qZ3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114bd4c8fd64f005530ce9d9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/CgM2sO0P53z_n6jVUVF4cQgoUhk>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:43:36 -0000

My understanding was that BoringSSL had a -20 branch, as NSS does. Is that
incorrect?

-Ekr


On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
wrote:

> and now we see the reason we have a problem :)
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28 June 2017 at 14:10, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote:
>> > Would only supporting 18 cause problems for anyone?
>>
>>
>> Anyone using OpenSSL would have a real hard time.
>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email