IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: What was the QUIC Load Balancers resolution?

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 26 June 2018 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@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 633801277BB for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 GPd8NhLmPZPp for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22a.google.com (mail-wr0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22a]) (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 3BB3F12785F for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id c13-v6so5626864wrq.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xsANbO8gf3nIu2ObKzqfui0Q/lix/fLmWL38qk2bMyg=; b=Ljk43QrQb2RvWTJeQy39wMdjH4gJWsoY41yhPncm/rrMjt6PNHcBfAYdxqy24Tz0Zo FMvHANdRhmlfs4fBszBFRtIDRdRQs3LKEu2siODiU7LKS8ZHwNIVsGHFOPSYyDpcv5bD OWT2M0rNcpUBtlr4GqFJ5zxAXiFhh25OMaISMYJ7wBVno9jzoSyCA7p7SP7OnXxHFGhU CR0TIUItrDzRa+6Z3fmU/rc6FI6IL4mOgQwqLUZtbXlLbEQKNbE2gLyBtV94SFcJMHRw NrTAaVcuTAz2bMm/r6viPb0JpM8kesS4RziWRsjDoIMY/juYdFr8sVM5oDlsM61Z8xDm RlCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xsANbO8gf3nIu2ObKzqfui0Q/lix/fLmWL38qk2bMyg=; b=JT8XkzEkaiQNXsWKHv+bPQlKNPAtgS8g7F7EPenk7POQBRu9WEqQ3x182U3XwN98Wd 4+iStpKEa75V/dyxu88dG/t4h+mutOItMcHZsWHBrHH8T3mAUJY7oWPE6HgDWZVZ8zEU Ag7/mn18V67mVef3A7l30pmF06awJdgmbfQjzFaV1nmCWXSvqecqlaicYV56tYP7UZvw /udXnF5xNGfy4+6P+tmwvXzzxk+wWrvqmYreKHN+Bmiz2uJUbidZ4Cc3IrkwYGe3cFt+ krzPq4/AaE4scvJ4VYdj2VKYzaZtzypFd9HiDgcHZWHXK6u2vI4NIb7/6y+XxvCLKW2P Mpsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3qUp5nczwz7/V1zzE3lIKug5zVRaCu1fSiDuowGYpx39/VguaK Z+jJ4JKII2jyuRztnXqNBGtHtzXaL7NpYgorx2A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcfHuaotl4u5rChjUm34aJRHYnhfQjtG1obgwDe1p3CrpWqORn/p/WtWxVDroysPPcCoJq5FvClF+y8M8w8MbQ=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9a0b:: with SMTP id z11-v6mr353243wrb.47.1529982126393; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180608153916.GC13418@ubuntu-dmitri> <BYAPR08MB39443501DF857AFF6DA75E97DA7B0@BYAPR08MB3944.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR08MB39443501DF857AFF6DA75E97DA7B0@BYAPR08MB3944.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:01:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxRuhUmFJOmwXbM3Hn5460vukXxoGmWcDzLGqBKX-cALeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What was the QUIC Load Balancers resolution?
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000280f74056f82b9f1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/_ZQOugn0p-EuWnphiBufdUVpbI0>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 26 Jun 2018 03:02:11 -0000

Yes, there was no firm conclusion. There were some recommendations on what
the side channel should be, general agreement that this was a good thing to
be working on, and general reluctance for the QUIC WG to do much work here.

That said, there are some email discussions going on and we're going to
continue work on the draft Dmitri, would you like to be a part of this?

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:44 AM Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote:

> It wasn't a resolution, just a discussion -- Martin presented the work
> he's been doing and asked for people interested in working with him to get
> in touch.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: QUIC <quic-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dmitri Tikhonov
> Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 9:39 AM
> To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
> Subject: What was the QUIC Load Balancers resolution?
>
> All,
>
> What was the WG resolution with regard to the QUIC Load Balancers
> proposal?  I failed to grasp the outcome of the discussion and the minutes
> [1] do not have it.
>
> Thanks,
>
>   - Dmitri.
>
> 1.
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-2aBorKh9WVE3jM5mBlYNliJH0Ef_gp3dJo0RBe9y4c/edit#heading=h.jlkx7yo7rr9h
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email