Why not exporters?
Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Sun, 14 June 2020 20:25 UTC
Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.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 96E103A1287
for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:25:14 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=gmail.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 Av9OG3aDPVPy for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a])
(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 5FEC83A1285
for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id u16so8303859lfl.8
for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=kLjrGlPwepj9bcTAjbnujvRFJbV6XWnBZKkVhE/TbJI=;
b=cvdGufi1k5eqrPjtovwDF2yk9kXgDRVEan4C1jBsVgfflAyFcw7pMbR54ouHF0btu1
reTcZ3o3Bx7RXs4mzKk8QAXm5KSFUVF1Vyk6S8zjp320FT46RtY3i3LSXCzBcKq+kRhh
deml/Xkh1b2+s+Ub5j26Pr2ioHGbd3+X4Azt9XAkqV37N6laCQlSS+P3rBcKAPcO5n0h
3xZ455KZeK85rMkxbGNTNmwpRJ7oqiWm/blswnyRgrcgFrk0LCuoETLcYBFjWQcXVp7j
WXIkulQXfpAQQ6dBkfTn26X9r7YrHF+HynXbIXmauOjRUKfTK7br5GUa6J8MszrEbVbg
g0DA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=kLjrGlPwepj9bcTAjbnujvRFJbV6XWnBZKkVhE/TbJI=;
b=nQVcUnYXE95V/uVZ2IYc/c3muRA6Sal6ZEdMlIOUB6YPOdJrRUkaU9Va6kqPBx+0fO
AnhTRnEKsDhmE/CVWWfvxWI/G3CpHKsiNvlV8L49X3xRviUH5EoB3KwdGOK1hJWmDlfF
nj2y8oMT1lQGRgVfG9vJERoDm9PPzkgMUR6Jbbo4c1lPCb7zrG/qS4V+U6lKYS4893aP
tp+miaWNFYDf+x6eMw+Txcomx5PzqMOIEiJMXkLNJhB6pYnwFr8MTgysHrBHwxzEJ9bJ
ec/OXKtP6TOS9ZGLSF2Lmtfvsf9a7OGwI9N8FlKzyE75zrH/sFm+OrjO3gvOKy4zwwWf
mV7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nn9VvVCm6EqM84htGjZ51QyZsDw1rwwkJ7eNWPVuLOYLT/2h9
YEzs85aVoFAPp8m+uHAW/P+7S4BE1fKVvEcxz19Ygv64
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhHXg7MqT9REO60h+Ze9/gLzOTnGtbES6zHR4An2O6iGDSYXQJP9IbPLbEgKnBldpIDg92xN1DOqNx5IVOhmU=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5324:: with SMTP id f4mr12063943lfh.209.1592166311074;
Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 16:24:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CACsn0c=+P4vRpOHw-MD4NxU5nVPKORBHoNPYnxxtk=fk0OCGiA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Why not exporters?
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/R8Ch-i7KJ6TT5TzL5eSjsklebS0>
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: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 20:25:15 -0000
Dear QUIC wg, I'm afraid I missed the discussion of using exporters in the TLS QUIC draft. Exporters would assure the domain separation from TLS, and have an IANA registry to maintain that separation across versions. There doesn't seem to be a good reason not to do it. Sincerely, Watson Ladd
- Why not exporters? Watson Ladd
- Re: Why not exporters? Martin Thomson