Re: Proposal: Run QUIC over DTLS

Eric Rescorla <> Tue, 13 March 2018 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF361126DFB for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 2tcSg6m2NOWm for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA07126E64 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y137so1512316qka.4 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=smpd2401DzPQshGpfp99zvmX5ZrwP/XeKL82qBFy1ZU=; b=vLGVzMDbR1k4FZYvTIMldhRqftdQqCE/eymOtWV5f4xQ3GzfnKfqVu99whVbINFRvX QdNMElOg7DoROYy5iVODUv6kUTBojZdiPVazeLHDcTZ582uDIO9FxxWh/8lONW0aImGx v20VbP9tpN8oMW3Vomb+yqV0dn3XQS1O6GR/q/hdVDgLHyFRPSOpSW3QOiIqDk/MX5bj V3IOzQpxsPCIHF2NPsMJRbr+fKSSlaNfYH6VQCWchFRLdIxS9I42GnKIU/7xfpNoqVNo 9fomAwo0o/eDZeOq5NmpflFUMVSaOWzMi1w1eP0ESUdlpNrg3RkynxCQyEc2gGquB/6d PBGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=smpd2401DzPQshGpfp99zvmX5ZrwP/XeKL82qBFy1ZU=; b=q7lFU/6nZrnSGUGrPvV2sAS4Wy4l+IVPmoS/tSjY0YrwY4Y1j1etcGBr/FCLLFAVmU ybBwWOtO7ywdqhqLynH6y7lTOCjEq2e4t2Qhqo7AQSfW5n4TJ0TAWYw2fBXcSOid4WcH Djw00LsYGxovXIACiLFoR5Y7pDfA+552PCRjAMJsqoHYASaYfGNmpW5KCH5H8fDd7nPQ 4EA6elp3WGr8EdAU1/yMDoPF0apk7les50qGSqkuw2tiM+4zc1cQ5ayItorWx466g4X/ lMepb4MP7JfsjfDTUH4WMQTwKkl99w81dtAQjxtNfwoPkC6ADi1YVMBS65IX55k+q6Mh yC7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HFQrl+EaCQsz3FTJweqVpMWjEdtsdgkfOXe2uDUHy6BRjt3Nuv l495/ccvKl/xVIc/4vUKZmRyT2G3bLcburApQR308A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtcfa6VZk2VVbgcEt+7Mqh04GMwZGCTfJFRy2FDI/ATrFVDEaZUgQNGnpbcd+eLMGOgWEmBwAN7NKVUzCidDM8=
X-Received: by with SMTP id g28mr3654793qkh.152.1520981489284; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:50:48 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Run QUIC over DTLS
To: Ted Hardie <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11474630610fbd05675319be"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:51:33 -0000

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
>> I'd like to focus on the architectural question for the moment. I
>> think there's broad -- though not universal -- agreement that the
>> stream 0 thing is not great, but a fair amount of debate about
>> what the right architecture and architectural principles are.
>> It's not really productive to talk about schedule impact until
>> we understand what the right thing is.
> Hi Eric,
> As it stands, you've identified a pain point, and you've made a proposal
> to  rebase a key part of the architecture on the basis of that pain.
> Folks agree with you that it is a pain point, but all of the feedback
> you're getting that this isn't worth the schedule slip is, fundamentally,
> also feedback on how bad the pain is.  The message I read (and, to be fair,
> participated in sending) from this thread is "not bad enough for this".
> It's clearly bad enough that Christian, I, and I'm sure others would like
> you to create a PR to incorporate what improvements from your proposal can
> fit into the current structure.   If that's the conversation you want to
> have, I'm happy to jump in.

Hi Ted,

I appreciate your concern with the schedule, and I do recognize that
there are people who think that this is too late to discuss, but I
also heard people who thought it was worth exploring, which is what
I'm asking for at the moment.

Even if I were to concede that that were not the case -- which I don't
-- it's not possible to have a discussion about what we can do to
address these issues without understanding the architectural
principles we are trying to follow, which requires actually discussing
the points I raised above.


> But I don't think we can ignore the signal that the current state of
> affairs actually works and that changing away from it so completely isn't
> worth the (new) pain.  I think we will lose both momentum and expertise if
> we start over to this extent at this juncture, and I'd rather we did not.
> I'm particularly worried that the uncertainty around this could kill the
> productivity of the hackathon and London meeting, and that we won't recover
> until the next interim, if then.
> Not talking about that as we analyze this seems to me to be the wrong
> choice.
> regards,
> Ted
> /no hats