IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: Invariants

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 06 February 2018 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 034B812741D for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:57:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 u8Yx6j9FwHIP for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:57:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com (mail-oi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::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 2EBEB1267BB for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:57:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id j188so2128143oib.6 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 10:57:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=O8NR+6GDVbV62TC5igh0vo6JTEThVkv3DI87fdKSPEM=; b=njBQLmQ8GzlwfYSf39Y2xRDlKeI0oyyALXiuOCE4Al8Pv48W3i5qOGiqgVanof4+yn fkluOtm7Ejy6fPQ5KB+3ERQrLFqgW55/8LS4YVwmdoFvA0LvPq7uTKfUWiQaW18Bu0oJ 9KuhJgmdI31jjEUtCViIrZmzyWGcrgH2I0HEsq9Zp1NcrJfmiDE1Jeu79vy+q3EftrrO 0TTWAkEJ/sscaV8E8lkxzBtgPFItmbZwN+6UIWLhKuOk4kA9J7mJhYXYLC3s9TeP5lFu DjOcjCrLYVpulX++5NN6ll3J3sQ7o/A3woNg3QlqV/nhl8Z8gG1ZHYZhAwmBTqMpNwiF g9BA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=O8NR+6GDVbV62TC5igh0vo6JTEThVkv3DI87fdKSPEM=; b=YeJWLpu7NLIL+x629z7omKTkP4FLF9DBrlOIDuJ3Ecsk5EyYLE2n2tV/mw/BhWPaze /1a3NjpxjXIu0w6N4krlTIMl0HujTD/hoWVMnNj+Q82V36sQmgn0C+w224Do5erqqHFb e90hGVGF6rV6GZdj7vP7iDNsZoZFP2FBwv1aDSUl1qP6OBk+TIdKZEHBGef01O9wLiRA Q5FA+Kax5UkdI4aht1Po4mnErkICqZbW9Hqfprtqogs65YmNX3i8eaygIgC9Qm9TceeH 6+2jUaqc7ZV+KGwBTQlNOGosD5cOua1U10g8hGm//Ztml+aEJr4MgvkUTs437LU+LyS5 stJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPB0bdtCfBu+SXiGxaYoYIXO+9cY24v4gfGi4JSvRpwpt1tlGjm3 s1pw/1z6wVtOkVpLMi95w2rVzL7J9tlw55U3j/YqIA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2242eFhJ2hMKh7gothA/56OG6z7+8hLblsWKd7Izx5jqTHrOgGVoWzXptbTaPwpI23YYdNAc6bUpubfFs71qRug=
X-Received: by 10.202.60.196 with SMTP id j187mr2390520oia.216.1517943454366; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 10:57:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.3.71 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:57:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-cJs8Ms62tBjxGTXBZ6GeD0+VgdWzG7zYf8Yui=a4HPvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C35C3AB6-F0FC-4D83-9C97-DD0B605A863F@mnot.net> <DB6PR10MB17667AAB19D4A9288FD5BAF3ACFE0@DB6PR10MB1766.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <FDFA0988-1FB4-4AFC-8958-1A6B16068FE5@trammell.ch> <MWHPR08MB2432F1CB1FBAFACD611D3913DAFE0@MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAKKJt-cJs8Ms62tBjxGTXBZ6GeD0+VgdWzG7zYf8Yui=a4HPvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 10:57:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMChFQ3aYBcsdtFOD18CytjhqYE-pWqd6JCUPuD5vwFE6g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Invariants
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cced86307d805648fc072"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/dUfgoOtPRtapbsqClGV15rynZpE>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 06 Feb 2018 18:57:37 -0000

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Asking with no hat, but ...
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote:
>
>> I support adoption.  The way to change the invariants will be to mint a
>> new protocol, and not claim that your new protocol is a version of QUIC.
>> If it happens to be startlingly similar, all well and good.
>
>
> If you roll a new protocol, that's not a version of QUIC, is it obvious to
> everyone but me whether you can run both protocols on UDP/443?
>
>
Mike Bishop's PR defining httpq as a scheme (
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/348) defines UDP 443 as the
default for httpq.  I think that pretty much asserts that UDP/443 is QUIC,
not a forked variant.


> I thought I remembered that UDP/443 was chosen because firewalls often
> pass port 443, so that aids deployment. Hence, my question.
>
>
Yes.  That may cause us to consider carefully whether UDP/443 ought to be
defined for QUIC more rather than HTTP over QUIC, or even more generally.

Ted



> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email