Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP?
Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Wed, 19 August 2020 07:11 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 867033A0BAA for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 VwEoCbxLg4Q2 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
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 65FBC3A0BA8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:2c31:68fb:d90c:71dc] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:2c31:68fb:d90c:71dc]) (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 D67F4616E9F; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:11:22 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1597821083; bh=TI5pTx6bVJ+XIfcDlnKsjR9+AKteRU9X7If8uxkJ5HA=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=Dy92J1r6oAf3v4dZF9mtjSQzA8QGzU7wGeSYT9V1Fw1uJsv6KGhFr6kCwgLF24LbH navMRbSJLgx6wZGwmAciqZ48cmZ+mCEwHlyFY1HjhqvuJJDfoN6iUltGD73DxG55+V M96cp86Xg3a/7zoXqWXoxsNvGVyVc56icTJbMQ4w=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <20CC012E-2B32-49D3-B6E7-9E5E77389C24@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A304F154-8274-4B40-9A3E-2D4213E2944E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:11:22 +0300
In-Reply-To: <e3009e61-322b-2feb-85b2-07a2b749cf70@huitema.net>
Cc: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
References: <1ce1b329-78c0-42c4-aec7-db19b74742eb@www.fastmail.com> <2bac14c6-a543-454f-a0f3-d77258c2428b@www.fastmail.com> <CALGR9oa1y59huKSx+AY3OnMveN1Bm2xChZ=cbgaw+7jxvxQG5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMQz5NR=ZjD4CfTTFZRdXv5762j0DXBc5AMLJ7cb+Q2yw@mail.gmail.com> <e3009e61-322b-2feb-85b2-07a2b749cf70@huitema.net>
X-MailScanner-ID: D67F4616E9F.A4D00
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/D9CoasuxSekgpkOTLA1FIwoXoSU>
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: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:11:35 -0000
On 2020-8-18, at 19:55, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote: > > Please leave the spec as Quic over UDP, because that's what we have > developed and tested. > > If people want to run Quic over IPv6, ATM, or MPLS, or whatever else, > they should first run an experiment, learn what works and what does not, > and publish drafts describing problems and solutions. That is, running > code instead of some theoretical exercise. +1 Lars
- Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? John Ericson
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Martin Thomson
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Willy Tarreau
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Lucas Pardue
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Salz, Rich
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Ian Swett
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Christian Huitema
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Roberto Peon
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Lars Eggert
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? John Ericson
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Magnus Westerlund
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Behcet Sarikaya
- UDP, checksum, ports (was: Re: Should the specifi… Lars Eggert
- Re: UDP, checksum, ports (was: Re: Should the spe… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: UDP, checksum, ports (was: Re: Should the spe… Christian Huitema
- Re: Should the specifications hard-refer to UDP? Jana Iyengar