Re: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

Those both seem like good changes to me.

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi All - First, its really amazing to see nascent quic implementations
> emerging from primordial soup over the last couple of weeks. I can count at
> least 5 that have been mentioned on email, chat, or twitter trying to do
> real interop. Its all a giant morass of work in progress of course - but
> this is exciting and I take it as a very good sign.
>
> A couple things have come up
>
> 1] The implementation milestone wiki should probably specific a draft
> version of TLS 1.3. Both -18 and -20 have been in common use (depending on
> what TLS library you are using) and this leads to a common interop failure.
> Presumably this isn't a problem we will have with the second milestone when
> the TLS WG will have settled on a final revision. I would argue for -20
> simply because its a later marker on the march of forward progress.
>
> 2] the text on connection_close doesn't indicate which peer does the
> close, or really when. If we want to do un-attended endpoint testing it
> might be a useful thing to profile. e.g. "the server sends connection close
> on a timer 2 seconds after the handshake is complete".. or something.
>
> -Patrick
>
>
>
>