Re: A side meeting on OpenSSL's plans about QUIC

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 03 November 2021 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 087C23A143B; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 06:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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=akamai.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 lIm3vaE9rCqD; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 06:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23F043A1437; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 06:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122331.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with ESMTP id 1A3B7s1K024478; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 13:46:47 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=BJpd/MbTnTzoHkvbJDGKJTEioUVOCpGmmMrBXRrEO+I=; b=C3aw/4OxFkuoAeN3tPwy6OQTtdovIvppFLmRPaYFfqEctjeClWpdDLCy/SQAAUmxMEvg 0iy1Kr+Zn01kL06wSh149yXWA0O8L0ciCsWqvDJ7x5aGCJ8BjdC9qfLVa/6x03kRGngw o21EA5qMHCmlZSawh/DgKxeH3ThQkoMoaX+alY0hlyxUoReg26MOoFAPwDyLgbmMt5Y4 vepAuSFcQuGVG6hw4xskmJFXurhsj6ALfTDPOQuBEUa9p/gzNqxHUwV34zxucqg5s/+R CJ6B+zHLvQHJJxBL1SVHqVOsKefsgBc9PVHnY0YgAcJD0a2YpDEoH96gPHI7lW91js96 Zg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3c3dc4bcvk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 03 Nov 2021 13:46:46 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1A3DZdrx032349; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 06:46:46 -0700
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com with ESMTP id 3c1rn8pahx-8 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 03 Nov 2021 06:46:45 -0700
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) by usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.24; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:46:38 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.024; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:46:38 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Robin MARX <robin.marx=40uhasselt.be@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A side meeting on OpenSSL's plans about QUIC
Thread-Topic: A side meeting on OpenSSL's plans about QUIC
Thread-Index: AQHX0BUztLDXb0Jg70aiHM+r2fDRyavx2V4A///45wA=
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 13:46:37 +0000
Message-ID: <BBB9B93E-809B-4415-B453-C0EBDE40AEB9@akamai.com>
References: <66B5C38B-E95A-4C4F-A8EC-3ADE8A4E875F@akamai.com> <CAC7UV9YDiQ31b9VDyOaOJeZAFuLJeNH-bUDgwrSRSgKJBUyZbA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC7UV9YDiQ31b9VDyOaOJeZAFuLJeNH-bUDgwrSRSgKJBUyZbA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.54.21101001
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBB9B93E809B4415B453C0EBDE40AEB9akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-11-03_04:2021-11-03, 2021-11-03 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111030078
X-Proofpoint-GUID: hDtdHli5FCd-n8TFyNwCRDOgiwQ1VCbO
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: hDtdHli5FCd-n8TFyNwCRDOgiwQ1VCbO
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-11-03_04,2021-11-03_01,2020-04-07_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1011 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111030079
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/OvLH-YvkEe9YkrbWSBL-mrgIXsM>
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: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 13:46:57 -0000

  *   I'm wondering if you could give a bit more details about the expected outcome of this meeting?

I have no plan, let’s see what the community thinks. (And this is not just me, this started with some people reaching out to me.) Here are some potential outcomes in my view:

  *   People get a better understanding of what OpenSSL plans are.
  *   People tell their company what is happening, and encourage their company to give input to OpenSSL
  *   People rise up, light torches, and storm OpenSSL Headquarters
  *   People offer suggestions about quictls
  *   People talk about a possible perma-fork
Not all of those are equally likely, of course.

I don’t think “echo chamber” is the right way to think of it. Sometimes giving people a chance to complain is a healthy outcome in and of itself. Letting that happen, if necessary, while having the side meeting be productive will take a good moderator and it won’t be me.

>On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be an active effort to include OpenSSL people in the meeting (as mentioned on the quicdev slack yesterday).

All it takes is for one person to forward my note to {omc,otc,openssl-committers} at openssl.org depending on which community you want to reach.  Or send them a link to the tweet from Nick https://twitter.com/gamernb/status/1455541263315439627 which points out that anyone can attend. I am sure they know of it. They certainly should know now because there’s one openssl.org address on the TLS list (and none on the QUIC list), although it’s certainly possible some folks on the project are using another mail provider. So maybe don’t forward things and bury them.


  *   Practical note for others: the time of the meeting seems to have changed yesterday, make sure you update your agendas (the timing in the trac seems correct/consistent with the changed ics).

Yes, the initial meeting didn’t account for the fact that the US switched from daylight time to standard time between now and then.  Sorry for the confusion.