IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Call for Adoption: Invariants

Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> Tue, 06 February 2018 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mbishop@evequefou.be>
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 EBF6C12D872 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 11:10:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=evequefou.onmicrosoft.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 q6cMFtO395M7 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 11:10:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02on0119.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.36.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AB7B120713 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 11:10:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=evequefou.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-evequefou-be; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=CtaR8DlFW5hgKgGZgJy/KIHaWFUpph4iQ4Kh2nwTvqQ=; b=lRLgvIWq0qSCOe5JDZxgiCuqG//B1HQ36jy69x9zasA8kG1Z4bRwPlh8u+Mp+cL56uMJ0aAjSbhCWRT/Pde2KLiYwFS4zuLK07vkFBcEbx97usGnIV8kbnUq78UPOQDamIuqSyZdzW4yQIyHdBcDFX45U8cmZQqpzRA5XKrykws=
Received: from MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.169.203.136) by MWHPR08MB2896.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.173.240.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.464.11; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:09:59 +0000
Received: from MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.203.136]) by MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.203.136]) with mapi id 15.20.0464.016; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:09:59 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Subject: RE: Call for Adoption: Invariants
Thread-Topic: Call for Adoption: Invariants
Thread-Index: AQHTnkeuZnxZRuZmRE2jEtXr4M5toqOVb7kAgAALu4CAAK8BAIABTdyAgABDrICAAANAMA==
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 19:09:59 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR08MB2432E39B469653DB35C02D8EDAFD0@MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <C35C3AB6-F0FC-4D83-9C97-DD0B605A863F@mnot.net> <DB6PR10MB17667AAB19D4A9288FD5BAF3ACFE0@DB6PR10MB1766.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <FDFA0988-1FB4-4AFC-8958-1A6B16068FE5@trammell.ch> <MWHPR08MB2432F1CB1FBAFACD611D3913DAFE0@MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAKKJt-cJs8Ms62tBjxGTXBZ6GeD0+VgdWzG7zYf8Yui=a4HPvg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMChFQ3aYBcsdtFOD18CytjhqYE-pWqd6JCUPuD5vwFE6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMChFQ3aYBcsdtFOD18CytjhqYE-pWqd6JCUPuD5vwFE6g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=mbishop@evequefou.be;
x-originating-ip: [38.134.241.6]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR08MB2896; 7:Hw1UdrkRbwuJO9rflL5ZhkwO1UpQRPDO7hl3/pRFUUKbv9ESHsYj+qYeevFc9+deZk/oUXKgjh8WjHSA2BWFBISoVXyjij5tWpzhfdeI2IPNL/0xTOP+QFB2/wVa1CaV9eIAbsKp3v6jqCfK2ZPcpifNJSdZQFzEkEQqYH/xQXaFx2XztuqCuX5JErPVtlIW5n8QaPpCA+wUo0M7rmYbJbYE3kEriPvhKMbskv3qyTSmNuMK0o+KEMd4UmCuQqVW
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 863a06a0-4c07-48a9-1597-08d56d95379e
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(7021125)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(7022125)(4603075)(4627221)(201702281549075)(7048125)(7024125)(7027125)(7028125)(7023125)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:MWHPR08MB2896;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR08MB2896:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR08MB2896D747C44F96B228C0C100DAFD0@MWHPR08MB2896.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(166708455590820)(85827821059158)(100405760836317)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040501)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231101)(2400082)(944501161)(3002001)(6041288)(20161123564045)(2016111802025)(20161123560045)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(6043046)(201708071742011); SRVR:MWHPR08MB2896; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:MWHPR08MB2896;
x-forefront-prvs: 0575F81B58
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39830400003)(366004)(376002)(396003)(39380400002)(346002)(51444003)(189003)(199004)(76176011)(2906002)(7696005)(53546011)(186003)(74482002)(106356001)(110136005)(19609705001)(66066001)(93886005)(68736007)(3660700001)(14454004)(6116002)(790700001)(3846002)(26005)(105586002)(81166006)(86362001)(8676002)(81156014)(8936002)(102836004)(6506007)(99286004)(3280700002)(4326008)(316002)(5660300001)(478600001)(55016002)(74316002)(25786009)(77096007)(54906003)(97736004)(33656002)(39060400002)(229853002)(236005)(2900100001)(54896002)(2950100002)(6436002)(9686003)(6306002)(7736002)(6246003)(53936002)(606006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR08MB2896; H:MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: evequefou.be does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: DBjEiuSlWr9pd0IU9VIWjFTPvMRamB6KazG/Nwd7M1HNLtjkG1KTdqPYs9bB26+vXbtzZDTTPQtzSbc/c8J96Q==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR08MB2432E39B469653DB35C02D8EDAFD0MWHPR08MB2432namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: evequefou.be
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 863a06a0-4c07-48a9-1597-08d56d95379e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Feb 2018 19:09:59.1267 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 41eaf50b-882d-47eb-8c4c-0b5b76a9da8f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR08MB2896
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/Y-sf_rMPf0WLbO36rEH3_FFmGQo>
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: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 19:10:06 -0000

Two notes, one against interest:  That PR is old and currently parked, because we don’t have consensus and it’s less urgent.  And secondly, UDP/443 is already allocated by IANA for HTTP over UDP.

From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 10:57 AM
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>; Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch>; Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>; QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>; Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Invariants

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
Asking with no hat, but ...

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be<mailto:mbishop@evequefou.be>> wrote:
I support adoption.  The way to change the invariants will be to mint a new protocol, and not claim that your new protocol is a version of QUIC.  If it happens to be startlingly similar, all well and good.

If you roll a new protocol, that's not a version of QUIC, is it obvious to everyone but me whether you can run both protocols on UDP/443?


Mike Bishop's PR defining httpq as a scheme (https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/348) defines UDP 443 as the default for httpq.  I think that pretty much asserts that UDP/443 is QUIC, not a forked variant.

I thought I remembered that UDP/443 was chosen because firewalls often pass port 443, so that aids deployment. Hence, my question.


Yes.  That may cause us to consider carefully whether UDP/443 ought to be defined for QUIC more rather than HTTP over QUIC, or even more generally.
Ted


Thanks,

Spencer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email