IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Fri, 29 January 2021 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 3E3373A104A for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:24:21 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 JK_V7GM8KIC0 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:24:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 A1F683A1049 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:24:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1611908653; bh=3wcGjLghj2GSM/kIqLMBgrkeCrgxoqiMEAvsBBp/kww=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=hM06aQKd6nOxKawDb37kTodzg6GFqJnyIRo40LLyKJAsnbxsTilbyln6dR987OM5M MN9MD8iFIRK99miMPlXOsNt3LXBVCYO2Ro++xkUr6gaWKQNtKJE/ka/FxZXrcH+rH2 o5oZP2Tg/DICtMf3IZ84swHb1XscdSgZ3YZHgu2E=
Message-Id: <A5E4F422-91C5-4FA2-BA86-7F291172562F@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0FA4834B-E1B2-4AF7-B7D8-6044AA94D6D8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Subject: Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:24:11 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-fiH4-Q-jufVimGxutPnfBZ8TbX2xnYTSckmh3Bbmmwrg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Roberto Peon <fenix=40fb.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <CALGR9oaXpZp87ujmkDAO6Tuy=m-s8qKDY9-azpm_PhVAMfkq9A@mail.gmail.com> <20210126170048.GB364092@okhta> <D01160E4-C89E-4DF5-B0A7-C5138E33D9C1@eggert.org> <20210126170932.GC364092@okhta> <CALGR9oaO8Q7TC9zyajM20gZkZPR1cRDSv-SeDqo0MfaQbgfAjg@mail.gmail.com> <20210126184815.GD364092@okhta> <CAKcm_gNXkCko=H3VofwnubMDctCN7Smx0LDbH-ruYcTk7S4kTg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDSy+4kVyrvmkd8vDOzASV36Y2iR2HEGzrSkxXJaMmED6JDww@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAcc8E3G2r9tzggRgz5t8ZxeqpFu4dwg4bmoLH39DnBHV-Q@mail.gmail.com> <9D6FDFBB-77E1-4AB9-84C2-376690A026DC@eggert.org> <3CDD98E2-92D6-4E5B-838D-CD56BE5BBA1E@fb.com> <CAKKJt-fiH4-Q-jufVimGxutPnfBZ8TbX2xnYTSckmh3Bbmmwrg@mail.gmail.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 335A8600065.A566C
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/UHlurmR368dsC1Ufileol2ay4G0>
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 08:24:21 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-1-29, at 2:03, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> I THINK I'm reading this as the QUIC working group requesting groups that realize that their applications require QUIC extensions to consult with the QUIC working group, and seek review. Is that the intention?

yes.

> I'd expect that to be stronger, simply because (based on experiences with protocols like SIP) popular protocols tend to collect applications from people who don't understand the underlying protocol as well as the people who are responsible for the underlying protocol. If you can say "but you can accomplish the same thing by using QUIC as it is now", sooner rather than later, that would probably make everyone's lives simpler.
...
> So, maybe that could say something like "are encouraged to consult with the QUIC WG and obtain early review of proposals, thereby avoiding late surprises"?

I'm proposing a text change based on this suggestion in https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/pull/192/files#r566650407

Thanks,
Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email