IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Dealing with Design issues following Last Call

Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> Fri, 18 December 2020 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.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 3A85C3A083B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:11:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 C5X-awIYcHbS for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (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 DAC4C3A0836 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id c14so2218680qtn.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:11:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rrPv9HnvgBlHbsEYiwpcD2A2RrD5XorC3gnkFrBUMMA=; b=HFg5+nticK1DnJdWcaiGAjGyfG+Zo2t3pE3qPyTe173unCJNtK5Sj/n4Zk+KsSfnkW S48GpOMeeDs6Ob0nTVN0iS9zgscJpoee2xBo5XSBDK/kkkPgdwXgU6v5qy9KRIuuW1mj 6OLdj3b0R4GLZbjzjEQZDvgyMVSPJ0znqV6moXikW2l+McpWiP56K9J5yhgkq2p1Y30X ptEkrqEOQMQqbRT9R+fB3OJuucZLJnrEHrxgdoDZXv37xTQRso03NwDh8LP8diW1Zpbu bvrkalXTAemWsdGq+RCgfARORsd8Slo4ug9mY7CiH8/a5tDUCl/ybvZlF9whT+4Ly8YA dxgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rrPv9HnvgBlHbsEYiwpcD2A2RrD5XorC3gnkFrBUMMA=; b=ofjEcS7qIOhhOpw+cNVl0SRT6uSjyCkhfthI496UkS0DIfi5LwplbywC7uAX5G+LsB pqelkVQFwoDOfeKeuXDqRyMx2IQqJ2SzdtiZSGT7OVKopVPdTMAdAeGyr7fEdI+Im016 V/8mR6XaB4KWG+kWv08jmO7Utf0UpGsBvFXfqp0PjXQMZgBdB5dwavAHC+7lUeHYCdpk +KPzZJwaz2m39CGqUXsFSrhvXKGzHvEqr1KCXJ+TCV79DMRXOf+wZj5/DsUuRv0d6LHO kgIyWVf0BnQiKqoiK/LhchFYz6U8/HqWcxyMrGgYK3cmKtPgllXIBZQ73KkezjBferfD CtfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oNxLjZ+PHqGRd7KhcuOkK9cbDgfEx2ruqQDDC1yUmVTQ8XNEL 8ts1fZH73RJkLY38VVb2uRo7pPyI3FZyhQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxpZghRBWfRl4r1RoQ4rljrO2wuNjA48MUqbvX2VLGmkkZj5La2VIXErsFX7ZJAWey+f4upVw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e0e:: with SMTP id c14mr5663206qtw.71.1608322294475; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:11:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from okhta (ool-44c1d219.dyn.optonline.net. [68.193.210.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x47sm6108883qtb.86.2020.12.18.12.11.32 for <quic@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:11:31 -0500
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
To: quic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Dealing with Design issues following Last Call
Message-ID: <20201218201131.GB34756@okhta>
Mail-Followup-To: quic@ietf.org
References: <CALGR9oaAfy0jj=mqX1tiuKdE=Kk=mRHgv15pUUM1XHBMovkw4Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9oaAfy0jj=mqX1tiuKdE=Kk=mRHgv15pUUM1XHBMovkw4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/ck4ZXRzis4Y3JpKWiv52wk1Z9Eg>
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: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:11:37 -0000

Hi Lucas,

Could you please clear something up for me:

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 07:22:33PM +0000, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> * Path Challenge Padding and Amplification Protection -
> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257
> 
> We are preparing the QUIC documents and intend to cut a new set of drafts
> for our Area Director, Magnus Westerlund, to take forward to the IESG.
> Rather than issue a WG consensus call for the above design issues, we plan
> to merge the associated PRs, mark the issues as "call-issued" and leave
> them open until the IESG review period concludes.

And then what?  In other words, should I implement the changes associated
with 4257 or not?  The text is in transport-33, yet the issue is still
open.  I take it to mean that this change is not as solid as it could be
and it may be rolled back (otherwise, why leave the bug open?).  In this
case, implementing this may end up to be a waste of time.

  - Dmitri.

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email