Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Wed, 27 May 2020 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 A0CD83A08EB for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:50:41 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 vc_cutRVKQkL for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:0:35:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CDA33A0899 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:0:35:e803:114f:ca18:f6d7] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:0:35:e803:114f:ca18:f6d7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B45AA613A0F; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:50:32 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1590562232; bh=gHSBD5bMXMIw+uRPbADUWGvMO9SUAfK3dBVE/Cioqg0=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=O3vOOeC1dpH8FOZl94KRK4H5L59AqzLc7OYoiyVfO4SjYAqmGLOCqZITmshJxYn4c wpmBahRG4Lgbmab9JYBlVISxk776v7xyNRbdLKmh+VQ8RLL3FC+bkKAz3LWXnxWr4D +UV2x0u+5+cgXrpdX43/Ctq6zOTpjUz7B5KBlOY4=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <833A693C-62E6-4889-9954-FCE65A839A7C@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4D72327F-DCFC-4342-BA78-1ABB02C4441C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 09:50:29 +0300
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQBqfrz24riPQA_VGKcGp_TzW0pqb97KfFMtNdW9pUfDg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
References: <CAM4esxQBqfrz24riPQA_VGKcGp_TzW0pqb97KfFMtNdW9pUfDg@mail.gmail.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: B45AA613A0F.A3B9C
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/P_x1YF-8aDnp9rjNC22n_Z5QYGg>
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, 27 May 2020 06:50:42 -0000

Hi,

On 2020-5-26, at 20:55, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
> - This draft becomes fully normative on future versions of QUIC ("Future versions of QUIC MUST NOT mess with this format..."), or

I agree that it MUST (heh) be normative. If that requires us to stick a 2119 keyword somewhere in there, your suggestion would work.

Lars