Re: Proposal: Run QUIC over DTLS

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> 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.

-Ekr



> 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
>
>
>