IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 29 June 2017 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 47E20124D68 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 nvwkX7s_ZwsT for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB8FC1200ED for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v5T0mLRF006668; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:48:23 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=ZX+o53tlgTlvWLykN6J47+j+o2ekwsPSIyyqVzF/N1w=; b=djOs2Rt9izJkx8wImGqhs2MeOWeGRs+ILOel/H8qsKdngZm6QNNI9xPO5y8323dkfwkV vknWomRxKZqRuTqCfsGQwnNWLFdzfAB/miDd94JKjhQXGZ/yWJjyFaGpBvoGUfY/kx2M A798iEV6q0zhRN+r2vm7XgEhvxsANLoUM1IIK1kq0D/obps360koUzd8vOwRghVTcrQo c7C6gYW07jgs4YyTp9uNeDE7/Qje/LpNcDz3SWKi5mYy79lVSwfbnXjj4V3cwmBo7moJ 6JkBdIGmyMMmJboJ78JeDQmlqusGKBUrQqjeQDGrxPBeWjwYamIf6MLgTORbEzqyiJGA Rw==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (a184-51-33-18.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [184.51.33.18] (may be forged)) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2bcj9ca7fn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:48:23 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v5T0kgqk000319; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:48:20 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.33]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2b9kduxj9s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:48:20 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:48:19 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:48:19 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
CC: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Subject: RE: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify
Thread-Topic: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify
Thread-Index: AQHS8FBPH6TyB59WF0Oa9Z3+06dB/aI7A6gAgAAExQCAAACXgP//+Lwg
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:48:18 +0000
Message-ID: <0a8b613fa376412a88c95631c44531a4@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.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>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUD3tRdci95TgGqg4xPZeV=knCug=EoNw-S+3oatx_G8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.37.175]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-06-28_15:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706290011
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-06-28_15:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706290011
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/Gn098Rl9SXc4EulxdHAPKF2baOk>
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: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:48:27 -0000

> 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.

Well, not a real hard time.  Our current master is at 20, but the -18 version is tagged, so you'd be able to do it if necessary.

I hope it's not necessary; if this adds pressure to get the blockages unstuck...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email