Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

I'm supportive of the overall direction of this rechartering, with some
concerns though:

1) multipath is not mentioned in this charter - based on the conversations
we've had over the past months, I think we should be explicit about whether
multipath is in or out of scope

2) +1 to Ian and Dmitri's comments about mentioning current examples in a
way that seems to preclude other extensions, we could remove the examples
to help clarify

3) I was surprised by "Extensions intended for Standards Track need to have
general applicability to multiple application protocols." and I don't think
our charter should preclude these. We shouldn't ban standard-track
protocols that require a QUIC extension to function properly. Perhaps
another way we could phrase this would be to say that "The QUIC WG is only
chartered to work on extensions that have general applicability to multiple
application protocols. Extensions that are specific to an application
protocol should be defined in the WG responsible for that protocol, in
consultation with the QUIC WG." -- without stating anything about Standards
track.

4) It seems off to me to simultaneously declare HTTP/3 logging in-scope and
HTTP/3 out-of-scope. I think qlog is useful, but if we want to use it
outside of the QUIC transport protocol then maybe it should live in another
WG.

5) "Maintenance and evolution of the QUIC base specifications" isn't very
clear to me - does that mean that working on future versions of QUIC is in
or out of scope?

David

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:00 PM Ian Swett <ianswett=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> In the past, I felt there was quite a bit of resistance to accepting new
> documents not explicitly listed in the charter, which makes me share some
> of Dmitri's concerns.
>
> Mentioning qlog specifically made me a bit nervous, because the other
> examples were worded broadly enough that they could encompass different
> drafts if needed.
>
> Minus that concern, LGTM.
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:48 PM Dmitri Tikhonov <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> OK, hopefully that's how it works out in the end.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>   - Dmitri.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 05:27:11PM +0000, Lucas Pardue wrote:
>> > Waiting for the new documents to get proposed and adopted, as a new
>> > precedent for future work in this area doesn't IMO help much. We already
>> > have precedents, which I trust the WG to be capable of applying without
>> > being too literal.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Lucas
>>
>>