IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Wed, 21 September 2022 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@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 EB619C1524AF; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.853 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 YAYXEZRZZwke; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x333.google.com (mail-ot1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::333]) (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 88C78C1524BA; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id h9-20020a9d5549000000b0063727299bb4so5000331oti.9; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:48:10 -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=O9Py3hjav/A989cqj1XoLMq8jzz910d5pXIpIc3GQCo=; b=HybfmNaahFsRKGNz3+uFCZ8VZuqB5MpmbvlxOZCySgf5Ihen1etFqL3l9IQpwTZusP ReQCwOag743PGpRm7gxl9+V8xI3kkvpae0H5BGJl5rI44UsprcmSQq/gfpOCBejbe/sm q8v+iOH1em7K+zpopcFGV/r89Hmhu7yMpCctDIfTNvR0DpM11CtPRNVdA6J9ctGcpe8+ E4PnruFg8zDUiuxeBWCNF+gFM8ZH8hU8C3ykGN/AQkIYw65r+vaKwCO/fQNipVUtr0B1 6KKyTijV0Ppq6b6dXuSlRsavsF0MN3At6V9AeL7lPvZvJrEqnWwgGkafAmXA4/uI9Soa Zm9w==
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=O9Py3hjav/A989cqj1XoLMq8jzz910d5pXIpIc3GQCo=; b=k0keDAqky36jIYqFCW9qLmTOumwZoebMlceRw1LDWCPluui3aBC9kiJ4Tezgxt79fH PjjgMmZeBvNufS28slk/tRXUeYFpoaDuq4rS/m6BD3ktL5hoyhmPJ0CylppfcvrQBjrT VzO22TQPA7XK3602HWaIqkf2t9RnahDk2tuVmyBmfOKq0hxixR7MlrMkxIngWO+Mhyyv FRx729yQATZQmDFCdGwqJNm446cjWWk3ncfkEv9Ta9yT8YG5MfZxUSeYpOBIuHz67mmh WqchUJZ7dfaM6U3kOXzZSPNVm5jtjjRq8YQNVSczx7ooAGlMBeGmyJru4CePiSngr56w 28aQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1ucBkxCIRNq97Vb738dcksjx01HyrNahvZTfkkr+0JkDB+R4hC reCm0Kylk2HUfFqDuYSiFwsHwBS2soKLww42wV33ucOc6qc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM43+4Gr0+0hIo/xwShD3zDfSKJUFl70avzkIW+37EvJitBu736jqvV3eG+uONE/kwaIpRWXLBT6EmkXRdsa0rU=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:450a:0:b0:655:f46f:2bed with SMTP id w10-20020a9d450a000000b00655f46f2bedmr222769ote.123.1663800489584; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9oYRZSZ4zRGco5M-umBm96LDg_p2ckEVq4EEra-Uz3hDEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9oYRZSZ4zRGco5M-umBm96LDg_p2ckEVq4EEra-Uz3hDEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:47:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CALGR9oZbACAgkCUeea=0LqCLR9sGy0pStQppaR04gZphJKb48g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus call: should the Version Negotiation update RFC 9000?
To: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Cc: QUIC WG Chairs <quic-chairs@ietf.org>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000028afc705e937bd8f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/FKOZ_8LM7KLevO2ST9wj6aV1Agw>
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: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 22:48:17 -0000

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