Re: Dealing with Design issues following Last Call

Dmitri Tikhonov <> Fri, 18 December 2020 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4E63A08B1 for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:57:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id orEQbtKmj4kM for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0125A3A08AF for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:57:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 22so3344300qkf.9 for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:57:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=yFJRdm/R7xm53Vm1EI1EBTaq0KYlRNnCvE92jZQLHyA=; b=ynQfRcLnHwvqu4fRKGZ7T8x11NMH9I1QLlDEpBlCecafFjlIs/6d/3E9EJdGc33PMS eSHEm9SEzBq9Be34mEw6343wVp2KIrRyuboF3XbNPma/L53ORSl0oz8k0LOE5oYwk1kf ho+ZLD9ViX1Jv3qwdT95BZsMtBojopmWI/O6GPRmxFhOklGDrcapEYmsluRN5BC+qt2X 7xEm+J/kq+K4hxDQnYKd0CwC9W6OYrcB+3giV3Di5gI2LqoK1Pdm06CrSHM0O/QSHjde wFvu+BZwUb7WaOTUrR1ZBlkJ3ru5nOWVTP8NI4NYh4OCtbMuu1WYUnVhVMW2hvVJWafy ngsA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=yFJRdm/R7xm53Vm1EI1EBTaq0KYlRNnCvE92jZQLHyA=; b=q6r8fXXqsrLI4nOVhojxTOb6HgWIUhQNT+P03UZ1beGz2pnahYPTa/3xWWNUet4f4b XZyYjPaabpJyovwk8hTcZ95oU1Calbhv5ZagxArmVR00EoEz+/2E3R1xEmdTJF7JjOZg jiECUEs7ewceWiRL36LhAdzpyrxHtwWNveMlBbZvKDu4BjxKK2d1IE+QtoMZksK4dStL TGI03beBeSuYAoxsGCimwFk4v4pH5IAWCmFQK6F9qM4MG4l7JsfQyJu4kFP1N7O9ZxMW VeAJQoc5gzYRWTSAVX8S0/EtFF33/WRcxJ1N9YAajtB/aTcnTXpC79NKUGN3vxcd15uW rHXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530EKJ5Uh5AxCpJWV3mX/Uiccw46mHA1BTqHW3jK1Tl2IjjgdBFn 1Qn4XpT7bzHy7IPxtbEVM9Qv+lO6F5JVCA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsYlqLDvEG0duEFTXvDGz8ZKI3hVIWOpebnqyICbjjB3bCYkqFjphTtJEInnI7LxrPcVZy7g==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:896:: with SMTP id 144mr6791596qki.96.1608325059612; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from okhta ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h21sm6443295qkk.5.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:57:36 -0500
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <>
Subject: Re: Dealing with Design issues following Last Call
Message-ID: <20201218205736.GC34756@okhta>
References: <> <20201218201131.GB34756@okhta> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:57:43 -0000

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:39:58PM +0000, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 8:11 PM Dmitri Tikhonov <>
> wrote:
> > And then what?  In other words, should I implement the changes associated
> > with 4257 or not?  The text is in transport-33, yet the issue is still
> > open.  I take it to mean that this change is not as solid as it could be
> > and it may be rolled back (otherwise, why leave the bug open?).  In this
> > case, implementing this may end up to be a waste of time.
> >
> Draft-33 is effectively the proposed resolution to all issues opened during
> the IETF Last Call. These are the documents that the IESG will review to
> ensure we addressed last call comments. It's feasible, albeit hopefully
> unlikely, that changes might be requested to the text that deals
> specifically with those design issues. The IESG may also request other
> changes as a result of their review, of course. The transport, tls,
> recovery and invariants documents are on the agenda for the next IESG
> telechat on 2021-01-07 [1].
> [1]

I see -- thank you for the explanation.  So if IESG requests changes,
there will be a -34?

> I'd treat implementing draft 33 as trying to implement a PR before it was
> merged, while the WG was running its late-stage process. There's a risk it
> could change or be rolled back, it's upon implementers to decide if they
> wish to bear that risk. I'll also highlight that draft 33 includes the note

Touche!  Although I merely want to *implement*, not deploy this version.

> That doesn't mean don't trial implement the changes but it is a factor
> people should consider before investing effort at this stage.

I am trying to prevent a situation where IESG approves -33 on one day and
the RFC is published two days later and we do not have the changes
implemented yet.  Then, we would really have to scramble!  Am I naive to
expect such speedy RFC turnaround?

  - Dmitri.