Re: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify

Nick Harper <nharper@google.com> Wed, 28 June 2017 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <nharper@google.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 97ECF12EC2A for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=google.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 tle5WOJBV5ms for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (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 87D901298BA for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id h22so43108322lfk.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n10z2un5oy4NGeIoCDJW2wj1Z49/WMiRZ9H4pZKQCXI=; b=Vw88KXj+fsTBhVfdaLZQzCbVNHFM1EwMqYY+g4CmcAePunwPblKnyfgFFjPEiPvYjb Lu8lFU7gJQoQxBLDUYQw86gRhqwx6stpQ/tVyxYUbIRg19vtuqeZ/r/nSrdZJFpKwcRq hQdooW/7ys6Lr+X31q7hYdl3DJyqDQyLlIXhT5AoG46ijJPQMZoNIubXNnlXJX0ylpsk z550CMHCnQbtwbkDP8rubC+R95xU6FQfL0QmLY+RNssf3q7/jBtJJuqCizS1JPKshNZz EcQNNEwKyyjX+CAlOcjTsJuV4c2zKfOQkXKJU9yaAFQdpj7DfUjY1ZNuhOTWfdo9ZrBt zAAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n10z2un5oy4NGeIoCDJW2wj1Z49/WMiRZ9H4pZKQCXI=; b=FsdxCFzTLAtGNBHNb1eIEST5Mc/a0Kf94dk0W8cYu9arzxf0vndEi5vBtXt+HzaB60 HgGLcYEiB8B2A2qA1kwXGTws4gIsDtK/DtBj/LdgphyBHOe3lbhuGTmLBHYKU6OlmY03 Y5QCoYOEb54nFkELquNr2K/AWIoVIwDVrLSIGEvNaW7Urk4HjvxgGIe4lkvj5X+Er4sb KlZF2A2vdcpRRnMDbEOoRB0KozC6uDn6JsG2hvt7dtQ14q6LKMWICza1zXFL1GrDcRMb TkIcfAR9oBao7jSypISgWm6KXmxTcGOOfpd8kxfOf3gVqTuLqXMzwcnKA0AnAGbDHQzM S06Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOy3xbe5MUJWkHJ3Nqioc/DjYmvayg4YrztjWIiBNKlIGG+TkBhU akOiM5LC5jYRSI6+1T3WIsNjM4IMJWyK
X-Received: by 10.46.77.193 with SMTP id c62mr3695322ljd.72.1498690226671; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.44.73 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOviRK=-WK=WOOT7d92hJLMJNp2fWYZAYUiWoq-9qZ3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOdDvNreiyrk1bpGc5Cu0OXyO1KDGk25USYM7jz5GpXQCdUpfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMat+zRrBG1WxiE0O7owDqksR8-JAujPxPOT89p3TgtQw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gNALLfD7fbpLs=bjFP9oOpx_efJndNtsKT21S5ADDYn1w@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUD3tRdci95TgGqg4xPZeV=knCug=EoNw-S+3oatx_G8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNrH6NuFXa0P_kXsOM7+KhyP=pabN2y9nbCPdURgv2Ud1g@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOviRK=-WK=WOOT7d92hJLMJNp2fWYZAYUiWoq-9qZ3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Harper <nharper@google.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:50:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CACdeXi+zPX54du9sM0iJ_Z=vEKkuiVjtbY6sfsyAhh1SbihOVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/TdL5iiALoyU2r0rHYeB-zDUSbx8>
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: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:50:31 -0000

https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/+refs does not show a -20 branch.

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> My understanding was that BoringSSL had a -20 branch, as NSS does. Is that
> incorrect?
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> and now we see the reason we have a problem :)
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 June 2017 at 14:10, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote:
>>> > Would only supporting 18 cause problems for anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone using OpenSSL would have a real hard time.
>>
>>
>