IETF Logo Mail Archive

Consensus call for Version Negotiation issue #43

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Thu, 29 July 2021 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
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 AA2083A0063; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 GELZu3iGcYxD; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (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 30BEE3A0068; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id x11so11983459ejj.8; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k0kj4x+34VpDGDADwk9pwy9kQOPZCsAHs9kuwrj0BrM=; b=YNVPFdZCa2XAi0WMJJqfxQEeeI3ewP32UhwbvF7QZEXmCvRSC+wm4jUgJirASd7zpC T5NkoXSyAJXCxy/GybzqGXvKvBL7U7OXDH+8NGFKFut48tzoT9D1idSQ9yJoel9pwMQX 4BsFESg95KbSacWCPAB7Ca7hKcsJ9H4TJtda5zCmFGCIRRJgxMaUHSSdvDt02sRrmP6x fHwp3IOUwq54xtkOzdsB0aONnqjf+FPjFmPwaRD1AaDcLset2ftw+XJinmCxUUJeowIN EwSi49yCyLMujReMD/b0aG5ovy7lF9e8wxveUxJ2G3cHzrWutyP1YjThV7xmLJdh8sAw ANQw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k0kj4x+34VpDGDADwk9pwy9kQOPZCsAHs9kuwrj0BrM=; b=SmzkHV7p3bBZDZkM0eNYiNAaOU+NUKgjqwuDY4aVJk+bCQxhXgCXP0f0GqrOUFXAjZ 2tRPt1IeVypEYlFzDS4RJ5pM8fEW0yKVDB1EeUIvltnNPY2k8GTB5hC68znP5okQN7ZQ 0Uefw6CC4iaK4sjfvHHks7iIn5FSbrwIojEGqjUXV+gPO96GLiyGP5op+wF2eJ0ao9rQ oLIXevC2il0YDOBQRM+p7i/V0nrl0FG4/U4fJwg2VvAaly4Xjm56wrGaNhdrS6dW1LWP oW6BVgeiMKq7YZWBs2t7NR4rcEv4e7enTuOs3Bs7UvvoePLvpaYnPnj4saLsP/C3fKOp J8qw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532uC2N3LbUrTcrvgOU3I7w/5L/ZldtytgGRXKiPkWpF+pdTfgn/ yDWDMkgJtD9BWZb5n4jxQhbWAIWDyoQTx4H98sM/j4Kb8OAZ1A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxj5SBjm4XloxMNsha9SHKEFvgQUnBsj+neLFWrdqqRIkf7eGb0PChEQDzV/dQF8/RUlowzrQ6bpEwrhHHqww=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3fc2:: with SMTP id k2mr6483813ejj.440.1627592702239; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:04:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oZ8Pu9Ny-4aPGx+rtNv=QZ2_AAfUp9QmPYZz6aFDDbZWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Consensus call for Version Negotiation issue #43
To: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Cc: QUIC WG Chairs <quic-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000db288605c84974df"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/ZEfW0No-0qEG5pXDFu6-_m4-87A>
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: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:05:10 -0000

Hello QUIC WG,

During the IETF 111 meeting discussion of
draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation we touched on issue #43 "Should the
client communicate version preference ordering?" [1].

The feeling in the room tended towards loose agreement on keeping the
preference ordering text in the document. Therefore, keeping the text is
the proposed resolution.

This email seeks to establish consensus for the proposed resolution. If you
have comments for or against, please respond on the issue. The call will
run until EoD August 6 2021.

Best Regards
Matt & Lucas
QUIC WG Chairs

[1] - https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/43

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email