Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3

[Matt Joras <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 5, 2021, 9:09 PM Matt Joras <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021, 8:36 PM Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> > "DO NOT DEPLOY THIS VERSION OF {QUIC, HTTP/3} UNTIL IT IS IN AN RFC".
>> >
>> > 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".
>>
>
> Lucas was referring to C430:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C430
>
...Excepting the qpack and http documents. I hit the send button too
quickly.



>
>> Best regards, Julian
>
>
>>