IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Who wants -10 drafts?

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 21 February 2018 03:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 A99341243FE for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:36:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 PpdJY0V0NK2o for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x236.google.com (mail-qt0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (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 0680A124234 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x236.google.com with SMTP id c19so349027qtm.7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:36:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qRy6BvQw4nDpPFdIcEDozSyaDm0IIPbIJkwJimhVxQQ=; b=RS6lUmYu0H30PhzO/VF0YDYiObCZ7vDwGvFyRL9ns9NA+Jg0I+DBVuv2ymR7DAoQ7G CPbSaCJXaquhL2d0ARde1h95qwM6gRm3XTWCtHp/MaCpo7cda1XAh9YC/Rb2rtk+y8ZK mPtX0Q2jxvDuyR2UHgK5Prv8Fgh2NijuG4aXgTNV8siSFQLa1gnLxvUwMD/m+oEeR6Bm c+qQM7s5a5YUSSKstK3zPb9bRx7JYSZkZoQF5FkqElDZXib+RVoLs3GrOdwrM0F8WVVX vrSP39VEfuLh4vA6r1XxBPcAcikI6803ScWBZVyZQh+HSRXd90IzvaHHxPW1DRGNRFSK FW/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qRy6BvQw4nDpPFdIcEDozSyaDm0IIPbIJkwJimhVxQQ=; b=QVAMGdNERfspXtWBPPU7SBaBAB1VhfNP2QDnhxhNg1o6Y/0zkyWMNB9A8G91aNDstm P3oEtwGkoPIyAmYpvm3X8CD9Aw0/kBBegHY/37PmWFct9YyIxM4Gpf2fJQLXzeNleUY/ 7myoc5I5Bd1/Q1zmQdyd+6MqQGxqyhrzoMjS0oCtIabl7AJvByeseS2X4rEutsOB5B8r 6VFTvTZanAzqiuRMMOCWivrapoNoctUMjYxtAsIXUGQV2yX/VXv7lntqI0roxmXQNx8P RioZdT7KkjEtE3+6rOd4XYnVPb7dwxiFXSwo+BeYB9nwkIHq9VsysrN96ojWvy/ZWtE+ KUlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPACgUPXVArlGSLqQXud+pYpUWxRPvAGW2X4RQzbiERaOej8L8bd sJNC26eQWRZF7FSOjyF0F9WFQmR6rfqe2T4UBk+8Bw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2256kcr8TR7dLX0Rwdvb7DhfajqpJF1AZnqrARDY3N8GFQhSjmqDDFZ9p23dvNDUaVGjQFmMeIeU2lRxdO1Pv8c=
X-Received: by 10.237.56.34 with SMTP id j31mr3221508qte.208.1519184216116; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:36:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.176 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:36:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <09090022-d773-bde5-afe8-48535f02693a@huitema.net>
References: <CABkgnnVWdRYDKUwgrfTjRmb9q_M9bAiysVYy-zDicGLrEGcvng@mail.gmail.com> <4A74CD08-00C9-451A-80E8-E6AD7F644DED@apple.com> <CABkgnnUBZdexEaxbnXb+L1U-b0mMZ9MH91ZnDduGqT97vcF+Yw@mail.gmail.com> <09090022-d773-bde5-afe8-48535f02693a@huitema.net>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:36:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMfnMho_E7HMpVWWH-UivDkSODLzZG-a8O0seJ4ZggYmg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Who wants -10 drafts?
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@apple.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113b7f188ce7480565b0a3fd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/MMrxU3V-TbFpsUEmF-TcyzxI2iI>
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: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 03:36:59 -0000

I would be very sad if we needed the H2 implementation to test QUIC. That
seems like it would be bad for layering.

-Ekr


On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
wrote:

> On 2/20/2018 6:08 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@apple.com> <rpaulo@apple.com> wrote:
>
> For the purposes of the interop, I believe we were still doing HTTP 0.9.  Has that changed?
>
> Yes, interop is QUIC -09 and HTTP 0.9 (no relation).
>
>
> I’m not sure how many people will take advantage of hq-10 interop but I don’t see any harm in publishing -10 drafts.
>
> I might, but whether that is possible will depend on a great many
> things.  Nor do I think my own implementation matters much in
> determining this.
>
>
> I understand that at some point we must start moving up the stack and test
> the HTTP mappings. I am not anywhere close to ready with that, because I am
> not starting with an HTTP 2 implementation. If it is what is takes to test
> the transport, I will do one, or port one. But no way I can do that in the
> next 8 days.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email