Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

I left a comment on the PR about a broader issue that might be useful for
me to bring to the mailing list.

Please see below.

Best,

Spencer

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 1:30 PM Roberto Peon <fenix=[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hey Lars!
>
> What would your answer be on where partially-reliable HTTP work would be
> homed (where it mostly requires QUIC changes, and may require some HTTP
> changes)?
> -=R
>
>
> On 1/28/21, 5:09 AM, "QUIC on behalf of Lars Eggert" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I've prepared https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/pull/192 in an
> attempt to address the comments received on the charter update.
>
>     - remove "if necessary" to make it more clear that the WG may do a new
> version of QUIC
>
>     - talk more generally about "a logging format" and tweak the wording
> for the second work area, to make it more clear that the listed things are
> non-exclusive examples of work items
>
>     - take David Schinazi's advice and remove the text about standards
> track
>
>     Please let me know if this is clearer, and should be merged into the
> text for the continuation of the discussion.
>

I THINK I'm reading this as the QUIC working group requesting groups that
realize that their applications require QUIC extensions to consult with the
QUIC working group, and seek review. Is that the intention?

I'd expect that to be stronger, simply because (based on experiences with
protocols like SIP) popular protocols tend to collect applications from
people who don't understand the underlying protocol as well as the people
who are responsible for the underlying protocol. If you can say "but you
can accomplish the same thing by using QUIC as it is now", sooner rather
than later, that would probably make everyone's lives simpler.

In addition to just being nice to other people, I'd kind of expect that
review will happen eventually for any QUIC extension that makes it to
Publication Requested status in its own working group and goes for IETF
Last Call, whether the review happens because a TSVART reviewer is
assigned, or because some QUIC expert saw the Last Call announcement and
became curious. But that's about as late as Late Surprises ever get.

So, maybe that could say something like "are encouraged to consult with the
QUIC WG and obtain early review of proposals, thereby avoiding late
surprises"?
Do the right thing, of course.