Re: Proposal: Run QUIC over DTLS

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 13 March 2018 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEDC12D7F4 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hTxDlDdbefjD for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED81612D7E5 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y11-v6so809356otg.0 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4iCxKBL2215SHDpvxl3TIQjjn/PfVtKlrwYpIyHMPyg=; b=Hfgwvu9XisgfVZGojnY/g9kKsDhkZWSIXz69wMgRJOm0exSNQ3MfaHzDPd1aghVRXS HFoSeqloGR4O8oYrqwHojs3EWxU9HkqnP5X6KFAHyKgpglEOHsxxYQW06EjN5RBAGZyA 6SUqQHo5jG/UzEcwiyotAwx7X1zT5QiblijjQJdz/dG4TSOEM6gntmbaPkSdp6Qxx4lU tzxRJgKMj+OGsPvSK5RYxebG+TJNPYlUwaj3qbK64MF22iq+4MGLhuo+5EPpWqWfqW7l fFA5MnyotJKVdbcArlkQF/vKl2xgKc+xp0yAkZnsfjbFl3qRvpkTKDeDua126tLxfYh/ 1tLQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4iCxKBL2215SHDpvxl3TIQjjn/PfVtKlrwYpIyHMPyg=; b=ZHapLlhNvyN1h9ZUuHmZkgGOEXQ5CUhoeAn65/RIzublYGS7ZgpUJnReSbnxtASFr4 ScVTXzekcuxLcRgDpOv/2zNITK7w/uEP0/tR2VifoCcZX0fxxXx1J0huPSm67FyQP8Nw EZ+p06SPlya4Og/acXVBBR/NylEG1JJWSJ+hK5pxOHPmdgdRgQgOYFqvKltOy8mqdAal 9zoFz150OLz+bR2fCOLJetsxMjmws8Sa/1kv+wvW8rZTo+RWokfVLo1QRtJgdgR0WI6C QdHslx9HfN+cb18niBy3wTtDgLK3Jpp5uR3jRZzHk1CeoJu1Fvv/m4e7Y5F8Fu5VAOky zCkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Gmwqbnv/rIMiOLJ2kauvOUzm+yqXxgMmDLeD6jhZssy7+B7Kr9 Z5h4Jgg8+qkI+51DwMIvcOmdx/eVcP0uKR+VXbg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu0ZSwMmsRBjlZQmvcrCV6g211zol5rmHLBqyaUH0N3f9dRyiM8MeRBWT2Q6q9cLtl6/v7x4HeAUBdB9oCBHbg=
X-Received: by with SMTP id b4mr1275505otb.393.1520968842000; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:20:11 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Run QUIC over DTLS
To: Eric Rescorla <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140e41e8abf9f0567502737"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:20:45 -0000

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:

> I'd like to focus on the architectural question for the moment. I
> think there's broad -- though not universal -- agreement that the
> stream 0 thing is not great, but a fair amount of debate about
> what the right architecture and architectural principles are.
> It's not really productive to talk about schedule impact until
> we understand what the right thing is.
Hi Eric,

As it stands, you've identified a pain point, and you've made a proposal
to  rebase a key part of the architecture on the basis of that pain.

Folks agree with you that it is a pain point, but all of the feedback
you're getting that this isn't worth the schedule slip is, fundamentally,
also feedback on how bad the pain is.  The message I read (and, to be fair,
participated in sending) from this thread is "not bad enough for this".
It's clearly bad enough that Christian, I, and I'm sure others would like
you to create a PR to incorporate what improvements from your proposal can
fit into the current structure.   If that's the conversation you want to
have, I'm happy to jump in.

But I don't think we can ignore the signal that the current state of
affairs actually works and that changing away from it so completely isn't
worth the (new) pain.  I think we will lose both momentum and expertise if
we start over to this extent at this juncture, and I'd rather we did not.
I'm particularly worried that the uncertainty around this could kill the
productivity of the hackathon and London meeting, and that we won't recover
until the next interim, if then.

Not talking about that as we analyze this seems to me to be the wrong


/no hats