IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Consensus call for Version Negotiation issue #43

Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 30 July 2021 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <jri.ietf@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 73AD63A00C8; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 MsXJv3PQ3y6P; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (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 CBA7F3A00C4; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id l17so13405437ljn.2; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NmvefL9955dyDDcaDNuSieenut4fCidxf+OHKFSL3RE=; b=j/WdBhWpQdawvYzBPwj4dOpRnIS0sF6JJ4Z1yTztm9SQ+6Wz2GufVVaiFllHf2jdbS JwJwyUNNL28377Djf77GTf6deo03tDRq7q2ozztuID7TaQdQQAn4gSrYdEROMLyfQiUl zdhUs+qzBkkU7G0OiCj1YsgSLMp/GOLLpcR5H1k0hBy/ksANpPpqJJLkH0TDw9z4Imvo PDkmJ2MRROa7ZGlFt58HBnfgBsovauOOPiJocRhqlx0sftRFW0orLpTM7lrmOxM5I79/ V/NIsx4bWks1bHe/DVvZaKI5I5zPeEumLh6TS7lDPOfZnfsVyy0zD5nm6rrA+NiTFq5G fV9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NmvefL9955dyDDcaDNuSieenut4fCidxf+OHKFSL3RE=; b=Mh/3UmomaF4WhiWoegZHNVw7cS3nAWdPSRV9eRyULLP4f+AX7OtTWrCWz9u1f5YcmZ N4sIo9+TrSF3H8tKJm4HecVvMMDAXrEWYJYRUOt2hSYYEmGpJ7gwIUYe7ssBrr15iU1h 1zqandJMvV2HBGISMjyc4zX09dPTH6OjLSDJdqOnYAnScarYR3+LxYw/V/fNsvQK8VmF PiuVlaEkQCH80qmZLjAU++TKy0HBCHYE/zNgs87n7NKqH+tQ53L0kimza02jqrn8g6F/ msFqvFtLh1B1QMPtjgZIQoNMotGyrEOVho3CFMw5vx42v34Vd2MXXv8VJTwHPTpcsuHI Y3nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ksr05m2/xmmlK8nwePBne8OpcOpnhcuX6aHZDozUwN1BB+0UM pgvHJ5ZxHYGYXEVdXayLM7hVzH6/xLhNkWKIvns=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxh7pERv/IAGHlBySzH6QJAP1d3QVXwornLSnjGSUbbFgP78W0L851o0EPAfEMXeLLeRkRWzJuQkniawnO0bow=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1615:: with SMTP id f21mr2319932ljq.15.1627665805661; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9oZ8Pu9Ny-4aPGx+rtNv=QZ2_AAfUp9QmPYZz6aFDDbZWw@mail.gmail.com> <DC8D3408-E9A2-443A-91A8-7906CDF1CA9A@fb.com>
In-Reply-To: <DC8D3408-E9A2-443A-91A8-7906CDF1CA9A@fb.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:23:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpbDcd4VnqVS3AogVc_DWEM4V+_Wd+OpPfsAAUwG8XdL4PhDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus call for Version Negotiation issue #43
To: Roberto Peon <fenix=40fb.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, QUIC WG Chairs <quic-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000028d9b505c85a7a5a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/HoqtqASimoShhBTmn12ZFxI7xXc>
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: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:23:31 -0000

I support this resolution.

- jana

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:12 PM Roberto Peon <fenix=40fb.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:

> The decision works for me. Supported.
> -=R
>
>
>
> *From: *QUIC <quic-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Lucas Pardue <
> lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 2:05 PM
> *To: *QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *QUIC WG Chairs <quic-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Consensus call for Version Negotiation issue #43
>
>
>
> Hello QUIC WG,
>
>
>
> During the IETF 111 meeting discussion of
> draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation we touched on issue #43 "Should the
> client communicate version preference ordering?" [1].
>
>
>
> The feeling in the room tended towards loose agreement on keeping the
> preference ordering text in the document. Therefore, keeping the text is
> the proposed resolution.
>
> This email seeks to establish consensus for the proposed resolution. If
> you have comments for or against, please respond on the issue. The call
> will run until EoD August 6 2021.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Matt & Lucas
>
> QUIC WG Chairs
>
>
> [1] - https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/43
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email