UDP Ports and QUIC version

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hello QUIC,

DNS-over-QUIC just requested UDP Port 843, where it would coexist with
DNS-over-DTLS. As long as the DNS server is running QUICv1 without greasing
the QUIC bit, that should work out just fine.

This does lead me to think about how QUIC versions will interact with the
port over which they are intended to operate. In RFC 9000, designed
explicitly for HTTP/443, we took care to make sure the signature was
distinguishable from other things that run there.

So, if someone wanted to deploy QUIC over some other UDP port, we might
have to roll a new version simply to create a signature that doesn't clash
with the protocols already operating over that port.

For any given QUIC application, there is therefore a choice between
(1) Picking an existing port and making sure that either (a) the other UDP
application isn't present, or (b) using only QUIC versions that are
distinguishable, or
(2) Requesting a new port

A few questions:
- Is my analysis correct?
- Are we comfortable with having to take up these new versions when they
arise (which may not be that often)?
- Would it be preferable to have a less balkanized QUIC version space and
more port allocations?

I would like to start thinking through this issue and perhaps issue
guidance to the ports team.

Martin