IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Call for Adoption: Invariants

Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> Tue, 06 February 2018 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mbishop@evequefou.be>
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 833841271DF for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:00:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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=evequefou.onmicrosoft.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 ouSXSeCz4u7Z for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:59:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0119.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7195412741D for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:59:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=evequefou.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-evequefou-be; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=KUKwfPcNT3j2umJv590G0sQ5BprUlaBvYE0i5rFDgTg=; b=pVuA+8ypXEsaWgOPFUeJ13rL9Rv8p4eE6LDHdEKthFVxAu78+96Ced5GvHwwH+wQXUAHDh9eL4Noh8MrMf6bcYN5dPF2Z0B54pElYpIDmyip6LYYwKk8kjImSD6S2ymq0PfAyzlXgAqngeJ1iU8SNx5ZL/wdJf5C8dVOgkOmc4E=
Received: from MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.169.203.136) by MWHPR08MB2688.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.173.231.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.464.11; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:59:49 +0000
Received: from MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.203.136]) by MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.203.136]) with mapi id 15.20.0464.016; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:59:49 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Call for Adoption: Invariants
Thread-Topic: Call for Adoption: Invariants
Thread-Index: AQHTnkeuZnxZRuZmRE2jEtXr4M5toqOVb7kAgAALu4CAAK8BAIABTdyAgAAzYWA=
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 17:59:49 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR08MB24322AC02BFDEBDB2662389BDAFD0@MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <C35C3AB6-F0FC-4D83-9C97-DD0B605A863F@mnot.net> <DB6PR10MB17667AAB19D4A9288FD5BAF3ACFE0@DB6PR10MB1766.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <FDFA0988-1FB4-4AFC-8958-1A6B16068FE5@trammell.ch> <MWHPR08MB2432F1CB1FBAFACD611D3913DAFE0@MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAKKJt-cJs8Ms62tBjxGTXBZ6GeD0+VgdWzG7zYf8Yui=a4HPvg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-cJs8Ms62tBjxGTXBZ6GeD0+VgdWzG7zYf8Yui=a4HPvg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [38.134.241.6]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR08MB2688; 7:grzKvjQcHMsdmSKllTb2g0ZG5g+d276XSUrivV03f730UedWNCRVae0dfL0csqS4xbXLpK/xO+SkmRZii4rP6204SETWtr4+yzgWz/3Hx5N8f6Uk6T911SbsaD3CDNq+dTxfw9oCfIw18+GVTBnGA9uQvswWaMbmQohqIkltGiPCMuwKxlltgrRfEBcwfI0+G8VF6+x41tfzCsXskZvBx5iy9hs0BKpqhhljVI/mwOqc2soJT8EhrA8aM7JJIq1k
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c5d84352-c827-488e-0dab-08d56d8b6a34
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(7021125)(4534165)(7022125)(4603075)(4627221)(201702281549075)(7048125)(7024125)(7027125)(7028125)(7023125)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:MWHPR08MB2688;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR08MB2688:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR08MB2688EA95FCE053C7C752D5F3DAFD0@MWHPR08MB2688.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(85827821059158)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040501)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3231101)(2400082)(944501161)(3002001)(6041288)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(2016111802025)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(6043046)(201708071742011); SRVR:MWHPR08MB2688; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:MWHPR08MB2688;
x-forefront-prvs: 0575F81B58
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39380400002)(39830400003)(366004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(54896002)(53936002)(105586002)(6306002)(55016002)(8676002)(81156014)(6246003)(229853002)(81166006)(6916009)(7696005)(19609705001)(97736004)(236005)(106356001)(2950100002)(9686003)(2900100001)(3846002)(5660300001)(6116002)(790700001)(99286004)(86362001)(186003)(39060400002)(74482002)(478600001)(4326008)(26005)(102836004)(3280700002)(2906002)(53546011)(316002)(66066001)(6506007)(77096007)(14454004)(76176011)(74316002)(68736007)(25786009)(6346003)(6436002)(8936002)(7736002)(3660700001)(93886005)(33656002)(54906003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR08MB2688; H:MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: evequefou.be does not designate permitted sender hosts)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=mbishop@evequefou.be;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: R5ltk9BVnzwmj9OkDObEKpXD9C6gF+/8Rf25FmfwRyN8FyGjCK9UAuTM+OsPQrXHxpXbiRBfMeyCGiOz1VczeQ==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR08MB24322AC02BFDEBDB2662389BDAFD0MWHPR08MB2432namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: evequefou.be
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c5d84352-c827-488e-0dab-08d56d8b6a34
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Feb 2018 17:59:49.0439 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 41eaf50b-882d-47eb-8c4c-0b5b76a9da8f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR08MB2688
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/QewiiPwQUrAX-kIg-0NdcYRvUko>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 18:00:04 -0000

At that point, you’re back in the “demuxing UDP protocols” discussion.  If there’s a way to differentiate the two protocols, then an endpoint could implement both and route incoming packets to the correct parser.

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:55 AM
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch>; Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>; Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>; Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Invariants

Asking with no hat, but ...

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be<mailto:mbishop@evequefou.be>> wrote:
I support adoption.  The way to change the invariants will be to mint a new protocol, and not claim that your new protocol is a version of QUIC.  If it happens to be startlingly similar, all well and good.

If you roll a new protocol, that's not a version of QUIC, is it obvious to everyone but me whether you can run both protocols on UDP/443?

I thought I remembered that UDP/443 was chosen because firewalls often pass port 443, so that aids deployment. Hence, my question.

Thanks,

Spencer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email