Weekly github digest (QUIC Activity Summary)

Repository Activity Summary Bot <do_not_reply@mnot.net> Sun, 05 December 2021 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <do_not_reply@mnot.net>
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 1A6BC3A1222 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Dec 2021 23:39:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=BOpqrQE+; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=HCixSio1
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 a9m9xTx0Hm3N for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Dec 2021 23:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEB5E3A1224 for <quic@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Dec 2021 23:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6AC3200A1B for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 02:39:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 05 Dec 2021 02:39:01 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:from:to:subject; s=fm1; bh=2W406GRlIQ/ x3JldDKIcEQc25wR7eowcNHa7l06Yns4=; b=BOpqrQE+QT/IefUBiHGq5RImXd6 Ntktp2XHOfIKh5QHGjAOyQC5NXFR5QtpjTAzv3t3qHxl8RDoLrjr1PLmu54TiaGZ yZg/cD2zWlk0SE3g5ws/jw+BqonNaCKvqahPAorULb9H1W9NHM0K9uGsXHeI3Tzo phV/kRl9ieowKQpvQeoex1qrhGvcBvTDxjk6ldtfcxwxR/Tmw8DmVkvNILpu9Nqg clud0TT0LRtRm3hhr+GzliR98eVQVo/IraMFVhBLSL9/xzZMJOFfFn3NJwO3bLTA Mczu7pq+DJs7H/M+L7dZzZLZDfuVLVqfnNjFHjCqxfVDF0bXHUTt4vWg5lw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:from:mime-version:subject:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=2W406GRlIQ/x3JldDKIcEQc25wR7eowcNHa7l06Yns4=; b=HCixSio1 GggL7EQRn6VxIKb0fq2ij1x2C+mLyTqzfB86oqWcQ3wlFMbvrAtClx5iQEdyzDEl vmRUbFjRyGbEjSSYZbSX139+f7lw4Pz9UbtO3YpuxJF0hz9cGHTLzm0pMt4moV/6 sWF44N/tLFLE5JIOuaLpDX/xTWnXl5URsqkae66nC22FkkteA3YbeUdVldcfQbdJ hHOX26fojWROeFUQK4k9BmXlNF6XTGNn89CCnEtBuZB3sMhJ301THftv4yucWfcJ LqYQJstOnmd2Zbf+Y5hffmMFxVbfzPZjURU5tATxw9GKtLFSX+kwOcJBJIiwFwmh DnxsLvzjpXrSzQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:lWysYYsZDsylNsuP3LoflmKawWIv5RpY56aueZ9xLb3Hbqn9Nag_0w> <xme:lWysYVfeDetqakmLvwrs9umHgalrCceOzxSEWHVRPiEqaUXv3lLE5d7pWCGYhXIw3 T5S5zTDEKVZ1eAohw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:lWysYTwtPuxdSyq-SmNMO2Io4JthDDz0eiuUNUzxduDsrsZhkv0adPHkpMEhnDobAlIBoKkg8r0uEsuIrNj0eQJxT5x_KJ1KV_RIIhUXI0K82x6nc5lahHK-Brb1F3i57YK0yA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrjedtgddutdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucfpohcuuggrthgvuchfihgvlhguucdlgeelmdenuc fjughrpegtggfhvffusegrtddtredttdejnecuhfhrohhmpeftvghpohhsihhtohhrhicu tegtthhivhhithihucfuuhhmmhgrrhihuceuohhtuceoughopghnohhtpghrvghplhihse hmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeefvdduteejvdefkeehieevuefg fefhteetveegffekffefteffvdelheduieetnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtg homhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegu ohgpnhhothgprhgvphhlhiesmhhnohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:lWysYbOWUHNf_NYttffTGzw5GKRbPjgEDBpuB1OdFjQ7RUt0_MgBYQ> <xmx:lWysYY_A_ONsETZfUfuLjqJtv8IvOT3Jlj_sZLPANDMxS2nLzOB_kw> <xmx:lWysYTUTWS6DKJ1GvftgGp5uEhHbXkAuPnUNacY2gODZel9lnJxbxQ> <xmx:lWysYaKwo8EVK7fm0M3zZvLj8Ka8JjOM_z3pioJTxXgGBnowO5xl3A>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <quic@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 02:39:01 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===============2235217670208751658=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Repository Activity Summary Bot <do_not_reply@mnot.net>
To: quic@ietf.org
Subject: Weekly github digest (QUIC Activity Summary)
Message-Id: <20211205073902.DEB5E3A1224@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2021 23:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/ZLDb63W0IHubpm2WnunBOzfXNUk>
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: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 07:39:08 -0000



Events without label "editorial"

Issues
------
* quicwg/ops-drafts (+0/-0/💬3)
  1 issues received 3 new comments:
  - #428 UDP Ports and QUIC version (3 by martinthomson, mirjak, zaheduzzaman)
    https://github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts/issues/428 

* quicwg/version-negotiation (+7/-5/💬49)
  7 issues created:
  - Current version in version info breaks transport parameters design patterns (by huitema)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/74 
  - Validation on incompatible negotiation (by kazu-yamamoto)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/73 
  - validating Version Information on compatible negotiation (by kazu-yamamoto)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/72 
  - Security issue when upgrading based on received version in header (by huitema)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/70 
  - How can the server chosen version field be empty? (by huitema)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/69 
  - Specify impact on 0-RTT, session resume tickets, etc. (by huitema)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/68 
  - Specify impact on encryption keys (by huitema)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/67 

  8 issues received 49 new comments:
  - #74 Current version in version info breaks transport parameters design patterns (7 by DavidSchinazi, huitema, kazu-yamamoto, martinthomson)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/74 
  - #73 Validation on incompatible negotiation (11 by DavidSchinazi, huitema, kazu-yamamoto, martinthomson)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/73 
  - #72 validating Version Information on compatible negotiation (7 by DavidSchinazi, kazu-yamamoto)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/72 
  - #70 Security issue when upgrading based on received version in header (8 by DavidSchinazi, ekr, huitema)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/70 
  - #69 How can the server chosen version field be empty? (3 by DavidSchinazi, huitema)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/69 
  - #68 Specify impact on 0-RTT, session resume tickets, etc. (3 by DavidSchinazi, huitema)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/68 
  - #67 Specify impact on encryption keys (7 by DavidSchinazi, huitema, kazu-yamamoto)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/67 
  - #25 Define something concrete for Retry (3 by DavidSchinazi, martinthomson)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/25 

  5 issues closed:
  - What happens when conversion fails? https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/17 [has-pr] 
  - Do applications define compatible versions? https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/41 [has-pr] 
  - Is handshake version information invariant? https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/27 [has-pr] 
  - Stable address tuple https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/18 [has-pr] 
  - How can the server chosen version field be empty? https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/69 



Pull requests
-------------
* quicwg/version-negotiation (+2/-5/💬7)
  2 pull requests submitted:
  - Clarify that VN validation fails if server other versions are empty (by DavidSchinazi)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/75 
  - Clarify other versions empty (by DavidSchinazi)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/71 

  1 pull requests received 7 new comments:
  - #66 Special case QUIC version 1 (7 by DavidSchinazi, ekr, kazu-yamamoto)
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/66 

  5 pull requests merged:
  - Conversion cannot fail
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/60 
  - Clarify that clients only list useful compatible versions
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/61 
  - Clarify that Version Information is invariant but its encoding is not
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/63 
  - Soften requirement on address stability
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/64 
  - Clarify other versions empty
    https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/pull/71 


Repositories tracked by this digest:
-----------------------------------
* https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts
* https://github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts
* https://github.com/quicwg/datagram
* https://github.com/quicwg/load-balancers
* https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation
* https://github.com/quicwg/quic-bit-grease
* https://github.com/quicwg/qlog