RE: Higher layer comments on stream 0 proposal, WG schedule, and gQUIC

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your thoughts.

> My back of the envelope calculation is that this means at least one more cycle of specification and interop will be required before we get back to where we are with draft -11, and that estimate is because I'm in a hopeful mood that Sean and Eric can move the required work in TLS along.  A more practical Ted would see this as adding at minimum 6 months to the schedule.  The changes in TLS are also large enough that I expect that the deployment time to see significant penetration of the new libraries to be longer than it would be for the previous design.   Call it 9 months, with 3 months of error bar.

I can't talk to the merit of this proposal in relation to QUIC transport. As somebody greatly interested in application mapping (with a WIP HTTP/QUIC implementation) I have concerns that progress in this area keeps being pushed back. We have little interop experience in this area to feed back to transport. 

A particular sore point is that the handshake-oriented changes have weak relation to QUIC "steady state', upon which application mappings depend. E.g. Draft 09 and 12 differ little in handling of STREAM frames. 

Regards
Lucas