IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?

Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ianswett@google.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 5E7433A0BFD for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 ybEwuAU7--po for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (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 142353A0BFA for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id x6so8630498wrm.13 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/3K4eSWH3gLu8SMJzzX0ifjIZ9RfTRhBzIqAF1lSYgk=; b=EQ5tv7Ou0HW8x5DyeUlPm+nfQd8TlCY/far5etUU1ZwC3WnVejQp7Nc8/qpNOayyT5 lWuqYUMkVGiOJoQqRCP5ehsLwc0jBEZ5avuXGjlxY+2zJlvioN7IwlfqxORu7HRYFtuc t2cEZcQvo/lJBuqhY6DRwUDqo/7lIeshNNM1U6XtjaVbEcB7TKkLz6UYW668V4h4mksV lgdg5bJdqRmupaqJ6haXZDWGYI7JlkUnhH3hqDBnO6fNmqXBwGtBcwpRDTJcdOmiFXZ4 gw2hGfTxiuOQuOYqkOoY8MEi6O+eFPrzPScE3PYGos18UYPyietyqKXs+jwJbupvEnjM 2kUg==
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=/3K4eSWH3gLu8SMJzzX0ifjIZ9RfTRhBzIqAF1lSYgk=; b=Nnf/dP2OBCEQS2mi2C36vGerRMhnsDKKgWO58J2uJOpVTFvrPnxUjaT9c7Fuoc7IhV +N/xdtvedw89Opl7k0mhoYxVkviCSrfVl6c3c/8AZa5osypF4jAlLvKBIzi9RTezIcyv nBKN8oUpY6OTN6dIn039MVWs3MXcgK1s8a0i9cKIYEi1v1H8AeIEB9vntX936y0INtoT iA2NMo33cvfIpyvc+8Cav3WmkiDhUNg3Xr9g6Xs0B0duPiwfdBDvJGe7WArOQ4KmqT7m VlHT4nElM+8F6L0wzDFqJ3RRl24zfaVC1WzZwrC2BAFBaW43oiyihYuyq6RnJ4iJkjNj 26bw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532c6EowhUJTt8oLAEk6xnvi7aqspZG+/wJd41T9IPHUCH6I4TvH WyYOjjOvZYk65KK95VWqW0+inC+NcinCC/oXH7cY4w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwDVDE6K6A36RXdCnt+4JDhvnm1b7wr6RLIzRa1vLluFyGTdjrlQUPtpOZNCY+dYRmx0swkCKf1Pdzv+9QtxlY=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9c84:: with SMTP id d4mr461642wre.327.1590538219072; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxQBqfrz24riPQA_VGKcGp_TzW0pqb97KfFMtNdW9pUfDg@mail.gmail.com> <f72e6e77-89d5-4d88-8d25-ef77a5a1109d@www.fastmail.com> <05FE8926-E3F5-41FB-876E-0AB0686BC80C@fb.com>
In-Reply-To: <05FE8926-E3F5-41FB-876E-0AB0686BC80C@fb.com>
From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 20:10:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gNsiTuQFqiRv7hYnEoSnoDdim2iZeiMA_J_aX0rVMkJMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?
To: Roberto Peon <fenix=40fb.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008d470405a6960977"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/cgB7NU2bH_ZEzlBHgQdNppTOqOQ>
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: Wed, 27 May 2020 00:10:22 -0000

I also agree with Martin.

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:08 PM Roberto Peon <fenix=40fb.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:

> What Martin said, I say too!
> -=R
>
> On 5/26/20, 4:18 PM, "QUIC on behalf of Martin Thomson" <
> quic-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, May 27, 2020, at 03:55, Martin Duke wrote:
>     > The only RFC 2119 keywords in this document
>
>     Just because we don't use MUST (much), it doesn't make the language
> any less normative.
>
>     > What do others think?
>
>     I think that this has to be standards track.  It's making a
> commitment.  If we need more MUSTs, then feel free to propose it.
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email