Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3

Julian Reschke <> Thu, 06 May 2021 03:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5CF3A2E05 for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 20:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wg5rkw6P8vAj for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 20:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6FF93A2E06 for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=badeba3b8450; t=1620272171; bh=RJvPa6cH9lcRJd1Zisk0xE7ttdVF59yaJJeYNIpTsF0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Ap1MoP8vt+bYzKSzMZtzF7V6u5c1g8bnKzFcH/cmSUnTcqgxXbOsEYo2GbfP+hwsQ VG3cdYoW37r66/1ztJVVBOfeQ29f0PYV8HHe7ifWuCYc8qUmZ0DN8oSFbeEsc0SOBg YSfRJhnG4jAwAZMmCNwAT1KBKAZbjl4ARVIrW6tI=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx004 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MmlT2-1lEkUn1bny-00jmwM for <>; Thu, 06 May 2021 05:36:11 +0200
Subject: Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3
References: <>
From: Julian Reschke <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 05:36:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:GxCnW43H1K8GIlAMPg9lGDu0cFcTt0XiX/Q41wqKJFtvc4T1CEh jIusxQjsij+3GMn1Jyn2M0KYapQbTW/GjC2CY83uOVDZbzvikHtMcXHb93mnlMy/MwCZFWh +9dJb2i17LxzzAGsooJvnjHK74BH0VA6MWyr17MOmTW6X9TbScm+q8wvouBV1JK8r76+X/j 7EYvhePCqtT7uuPBEWzQQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:TjqIzMOAAbs=:UaHSApgCTJzq68nh49yoXF N7gyMGrE/8dDOObSZLmZKf5OqVpfOfbNekL8fbwLRt9ucq/LXz3OkdYEA/LhDW07In/q4pydE Qmu7CNngMY3JlwYTi3kN7zGuQY6w3M7JePpFG44pItq9TWbSlgvruGsLfRbCkFWXbNY4OdHLl yjXkLRQTTk73bxiRapzRkREdazbvsiPTzuEYw8by8Dc6ILfapc35kYUjZguvVtKsWb4AQk4v9 W/9LzNV2cxp3pK+ZwZfRs5gSEFiQVR9OkWHG8rrdZAf/KlnzHUdNa/Yt/rBDHzoCgFL6Xqp/w khw3wQ1TYKJKouJKjgEjLq5/GW0fK6EPrAiP2i11+1F/r9d62Sbf428FSWcDODAtW889D8Qyl 5FeP74s6hCypG1mkFf+U/tg0x2L/YYkLTub/JFTtuHeyecEXz6AtaGUTpXYTkzduVV+3Bfo/3 z5RqoW72868eQyUZkzbPztzEd0r+CdI4YzpdH4g/edsWwHE1G52jtpriNAaAchF7hjatAXVW2 XrAaSnngfm7olJAKLoECW+GgHTZ0sPx6p/P1M0sAFzlXBBkKx8vdLRZnhprh3EixwOeHDqsws M9vrS5eVaLoANwdU9FSUbI/CoeejZjRTiKNG3WqKDaorepvz+gzJ1GML0Y7YOc8xKJK+ZpEfU 01uYoZ8QMFhG+JcitTZjbmc8/gh6g+RFsK6zTp04Z7TWH7uBeGzcXhQSsFCx1yp92xGq7i0mC Ls38FKtz0/jhTaAHTKbcsNJUsPxLBnAmx9scfiE2cCxODNAV5YJsrJqzTQ4gYYFyexnMxwnEd r+xXu012DH+XRk/53xrZgcFoXSJaXjfwyyO+2G8vC57paaczfLSWL9NtxG0avukrrzqvjYOMI 7CNlXmVBz6bpAji9bzGmh9158EeDWxNWB7qiuomYHOq3/EuppFwpTFw3LaoD6sEoWgPT+PMUN Rg1y+wK/gVSbpNt9WdOwOVnWCY2GHsEHP/JvW9R5Yd+9vX+makAMgvQN5DlHX4OiYzmuyRzee nM+o0lrwj4Rva/spyviAk26zB1u/1MhESZEf2H3U7i/nJAYjiWBzLEz9/NvtZqrUYtN/XK2oq k+htW32FcG02q2t0/Ni/uY6ShtBPTdqJArTT4UkloW6FuXYaYJAEbbyulDMUm98fkfZZrgXF5 yJyi9LxcfbI9XptRf+lk8wuIOdjBdqxv9WYgN5wByL/CTtgeGZ0kDHmER5GsVVrPP5OSq/mbO hffOzH3tv7wGcZKMs
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 03:36:19 -0000

Am 06.05.2021 um 01:18 schrieb Lucas Pardue:
> Dear QUIC WG,
> (HTTP WG is bcc'd)
> As you may be aware, the QUIC v1 specifications entered AUTH48 state
> recently and they are making good progress (thanks editors!). The HTTP/3
> and QPACK documents have a dependency on the "HTTP core" documents being
> worked on in the HTTP WG, so we expect them to take a little longer.
> The drafts submitted to the RFC editor define QUIC version "0x00000001"
> [1] and HTTP/3 ALPN identifier "h3". They include the clear instruction
> HTTP/3 is explicitly tied to a version - the "h3" identifier is expected
> to be used with QUIC "0x00000001". As several folks have observed on the
> list [3][4] or in Slack, once the QUIC RFCs are published, 0x00000001
> can be used in deployment. But the longer lead time for HTTP/3 RFC
> creates some grey area on what ALPN to use. Waiting for the HTTP/3 RFC
> delays deployment of QUIC version 1 at the earliest convenience, which
> is unfortunate given that the design has IETF consensus.
> The Chairs have tracked various discussions and we believe there is
> significant deployer interest in deploying "h3" as soon as the QUIC RFCs
> are published and before the HTTP/3 RFC is published. Furthermore, on
> balance of the information at hand, we observe a minimal perceived risk
> with deploying "h3" before the HTTP/3 RFC.
> This email commences a formal consensus call for permitting the
> deployment of QUIC "0x00000001" with HTTP/3 ALPN identifier "h3" *once
> the QUIC RFCs are published*. The call will end on May 13. Please reply
> to this thread on the QUIC WG list with any additional comments,
> thoughts or objections before then.
> ...

You may want to clarify what *exactly* you mean by "the QUIC RFCs".

Best regards, Julian