Re: Proposed Charter Text

[Roberto Peon <[e-mail]>]

Pretty sure I've been a strong cheerleader for avoiding distractions to V1, so you won't hear disagreements there. 
Since we want to make V1 happen, we haven't been discussing V2 stuff.
Datagrams aren't V1 stuff. Worse, datagrams are certainly in the same sphere of stuff as is partial reliability, and so having it now as a 'QUIC' wg draft is going to make the V2 stuff harder in several ways.

This is the root of my concern. 

We're too early to adopt Datagrams as an official document, imho, even as an extension, because doing so makes it more difficult to get the more complete thing done, which we've been avoiding solely to get V1 done.

-=R


On 1/28/20, 2:32 AM, "Magnus Westerlund" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Roberto,
    
    On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 21:28 +0000, Roberto Peon wrote:
    > Quite frankly, if we’re proposing to allow extensions for datagrams, but not
    > partial reliability, I don’t understand the motivation and I won’t support it.
    > Is that the case here, ‘cause we’re not explicitly talking about it at all
    > with the proposed change?
    
    To my understanding partial reliability for datagrams do not require
    standardization on protocol level. This is a feature that given datagram frames
    in QUIC packets that has PSN that will be acknowledged can be implemented sender
    side with the appropriate API. If the WG think there are aspect of this that
    would benefit from description and alignment on API semnatics then we can
    include that later. However, I don't see it as anyway necessary in this small
    update. And if you think this is something that requires actual specification
    then I would encourage you to ensure that those pieces are written up as a draft
    for discussion. 
    
    And as Mike already stated there will be a bigger rechartering later when the v1
    specifications are done. 
    
    Cheers
    
    Magnus
    
    > -=R
    >  
    > From: QUIC <[e-mail]> on behalf of Mike Bishop <
    > [e-mail]>
    > Date: Monday, January 27, 2020 at 10:06 AM
    > To: Ian Swett <ianswett=[e-mail]>, Magnus Westerlund <
    > magnus.westerlund=[e-mail]>
    > Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
    > Subject: RE: Proposed Charter Text
    >  
    > This is true, but has also been a useful guide to our work on HTTP/3.  As you
    > note, “HTTP/2 semantics” isn’t really a thing – HTTP/2 is a mapping of HTTP
    > semantics over TCP – but we’ve interpreted this as saying that HTTP/3 by
    > default has the same feature set as HTTP/2.  We’ve required consensus in both
    > QUIC and HTTP working groups to deviate from that (e.g. priorities). 
    > Clarifying that language wouldn’t be inappropriate, but also isn’t closely
    > bound to the point of this update.
    >  
    > Depends how much we want to fix existing text, just like any other PR, I
    > suppose.  😊
    >  
    > Other feedback:
    > Formatting nit:  Your “key goals” bullet points are folded into a single
    > mishmash paragraph
    > With the removal of the mention of the initial documents, do we need the
    > discussion about how we decide what to keep/change from those initial
    > documents?
    >  
    > From: QUIC <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Ian Swett
    > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 9:25 AM
    > To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=[e-mail]>
    > Cc: [e-mail]
    > Subject: Re: Proposed Charter Text
    >  
    > Thanks for the update.  The original charter mentions HTTP/2 multiple times,
    > but except for when it's in reference to extensions, I think it would be
    > preferable to use HTTP instead of HTTP/2.  For example, "The first mapping
    > will be a
    > description of HTTP/2 semantics using QUIC," and  "especially on the QUIC
    > mapping for HTTP/2" are quite odd now that HTTP/3 is it's own thing which
    > shares very little with HTTP/2.
    >  
    > And two small comments below.
    >  
    > Ian
    >  
    > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 AM Magnus Westerlund <
    > magnus.westerlund=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > > 
    > > Due to the reshuffeling it may be hard to see exactly what is changing. So
    > > to
    > > clarify in text what is being changed. 
    > > 
    > > The big change is to allow work on three "extension": Version Negotiation,
    > > datagram (these two are listed under fourth focus area) and how to better
    > > support load balancers (fifth focus area). 
    > > 
    > > Otherwise the changes are:
    > > - removal of the initial input drafts to base the work on in first
    > > paragraph.
    > > - Reshuffling of the paragraphs, the one "current practices for network
    > > management ..." is moved down. 
    > > - Removal of pragaraph regarding interim during first year. 
    > > - Removal of stand alone paragraph preventing extension work. The no other
    > > extensions is now baked into paragraph on fourth focus area. 
    > > - Clarification that mapping work may also be done outside of QUIC WG. 
    > > 
    > > Cheers
    > > 
    > > Magnus Westerlund
    > > 
    > > On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 12:22 +0000, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
    > > > WG,
    > > > 
    > > > Below you will find the draft charter text proposed by ADs and WG chairs.
    > > I
    > > > intended to have the IESG agree to send this out for External Review at
    > > the
    > > > next
    > > > IESG meeting (2020-02-06). So if you have any comments and proposal for
    > > > changes
    > > > now is a good time. 
    > > > 
    > > > Below is a copy of the current draft in the datatracker:
    > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-quic/
    > > > 
    > > > Diff: 
    > > > 
    > > 
    https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-quic%2Fwithmilestones-01.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-quic%2Fwithmilestones-01-00.txt
    > > > 
    > > > QUIC WG Draft Charter (01-00)
    > > > 
    > > > The QUIC working group will provide standards-track specifications for a
    > > > UDP-
    > > > based, stream-multiplexing, encrypted transport protocol, based on
    > > > pre-
    > > > standardization implementation and deployment experience.
    > > > 
    > > > Key goals for QUIC are:
    > > > 
    > > > - Minimizing connection establishment and overall transport latency for
    > > > applications, starting with HTTP/2; - Providing multiplexing without
    > > > head-of-line blocking; - Requiring only changes to path endpoints to
    > > enable
    > > > deployment; - Enabling multipath and forward error correction extensions;
    > > and
    > > > -
    > > > Providing always-secure transport, using TLS 1.3 by default.
    > > > 
    > > > The work of the group will have five main focus areas, corresponding to
    > > five
    > > > core deliverables.
    > > > 
    > > > The first of these is the core transport work, which will describe the
    > > wire
    > > > format, along with the mechanisms for connection establishment, stream
    > > > multiplexing, data reliability, loss detection and recovery, congestion
    > > > control, and options negotiation. Work on congestion control will describe
    > > use
    > > > of a standardized congestion controller as a default scheme for QUIC.
    > > Defining
    > > > new congestion control schemes is explicitly out of scope for this group.
    > > QUIC
    > > > is expected to support rapid, distributed development and testing of
    > > features.
    > > > 
    > > > The second of these focus areas is security. This work will describe how
    > > the
    > > > protocol uses TLS 1.3 for key negotiation and will also describe how those
    > > > keys
    > > > are used to provide confidentiality and integrity protection of both
    > > > application data and QUIC headers. This work will ensure that QUIC has
    > > > security
    > > > and privacy properties that are at least as good as a stack composed of
    > > TLS
    > > > 1.3
    > > > using TCP (or MPTCP when using multipath).
    > > > 
    > > > The third focus area will describe mappings between specific application
    > > > protocols and the transport facilities of QUIC. The first mapping will be
    > > a
    > > > description of HTTP/2 semantics using QUIC, specifically with the goal of
    > > > minimizing web latency using QUIC. This mapping will accommodate the
    > > extension
    > > > mechanisms defined in the HTTP/2 specification. Upon completion of that
    > > > mapping, additional protocols may be added by updating this charter to
    > > include
    > > > them, or working elsewhere.
    > > > 
    > > > The fourth focus area will be on extensions to core protocol facilities,
    > > to
    > > > enable datagram delivery, version negotiation, and multipath
    > > capabilities..
    > > > Other extensions are out of the scope of this charter.
    > > > 
    > > > The fifth focus area will provide an Applicability and Manageability
    > > > Statement,
    > > > describing how, and under what circumstances, QUIC may be safely used, and
    > > > describing deployment and manageability implications of the protocol.
    > > > Additionally, the Working Group will delivery a mechanism to assist load
    > > > balancers in their handling of QUIC.
    > 
    >  
    > delivery -> deliver 
    > > > 
    > > > Current practices for network management of transport protocols include
    > > the
    > > > ability to apply access control lists (ACLs), hashing of flows for equal-
    > > cost
    > > > multipath routing (ECMP), directional signaling of flows, signaling of
    > > flow
    > > > setup and teardown, and the ability to export information about flows for
    > > > accounting purposes. The QUIC protocol need not be defined to enable each
    > > of
    > > > these abilities, or enable them in the same way as they are enabled by TCP
    > > > when
    > > > used with TLS 1.3, but the working group must consider the impact of the
    > > > protocol on network management practices, reflecting the tensions
    > > described in
    > > > RFC 7258.
    > > > 
    > > > Note that consensus is required both for changes to the current protocol
    > > > mechanisms and retention of current mechanisms. In particular, because
    > > > something is in the initial document set does not imply that there is
    > > > consensus
    > > > around the feature or around how it is specified.
    > 
    >  
    > I think the above paragraph should now be removed.
    >  
    > > > 
    > > > The QUIC working group will work closely with the HTTPbis working group,
    > > > especially on the QUIC mapping for HTTP/2.
    > > > 
    -- 
    Cheers
    
    Magnus Westerlund 
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Networks, Ericsson Research
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
    Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
    SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------