Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3

Matt Joras <matt.joras@gmail.com> Thu, 06 May 2021 04:10 UTC

Return-Path: <matt.joras@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 E292F3A2F2B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2021 21:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 iWCqYWeon2h4 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2021 21:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (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 937643A2FBF for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 21:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id a36so5286426ljq.8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 May 2021 21:09:47 -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=Xlt003YHZdLTc/B912dmCVkhHuT6JeOupDKAya5MqDQ=; b=ulPBK/KHTPG+cb9RZgj81+NjLsj7RGBklNyXISaGFHshz4+Af6A0MGHxHGdCHEwP6/ psQo2QdJ/ElSftO+WDvd9Qopd4A4v+pipafuNnZpQYRWosYQIkx3+cHAvbTmT/DVhm0b cXkCqhimJuM7KUpzBUDtLNYI2G1ZTjm8BYs4xFoznlabfOHxRxf58Vy5R70cWdjtJPv6 szEf5NgVI3nEn5CwlTl0xgVgxNXM9tl+AfuCQxU2yu0NRCROzCNLEJpCRCOqEXSbiYCl 5fByxRQf/EY64REJC/cLFqL447A3bRA+anFe694y+bcF7MMpZnJcLTShKqgMIX9lsvfy OnRw==
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=Xlt003YHZdLTc/B912dmCVkhHuT6JeOupDKAya5MqDQ=; b=euEDg6U69spXrwWbpdbar0T68zVCvDtrl+zK7ip7i3tGEyqOz3syNpU8YtYz+Pp4JF jDURyt2+gBy3DQrtO2WUAekdlG275lGZfT3pDTuLJ3SJsTsB72Bgk55O9cCLZR/Y/Rgd HKH1Yq8x/IV20nNg6kY/c8Nn8Ddv0upnj3wLEXWHkFhTRFSo2Mt6dKbrSa5CDHkr/Ayg hsaClWU4fJXo6393CfN4Z71wNBFmXSO+90u2L8xeWV3ze9Y/DXQlhKvyv8K1RqDeW9Gm fRNe1fZzKkim18i59rMLEp/ZeO/4p9QU3+5ueMVf6ZoiUEdSBONbJCWeEYfqVmI5JHN0 7iMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531esiF9CbQpyvOanbR+uLXYUS3kEjxngpW8ZaoVWdSNqcWpxKrl 5xdh/2LuWd+JGG1Fne6ddk4SWaSda37NYOFLUfU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRgiUHdAzRTo3F2xuXsIh0pTtYrQ+lNvbtwaTvfLvRxrOsWchsoXSHsfkXXH16tk1/fH1fmVVBJPXo4QOCxPk=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b4f3:: with SMTP id s19mr1595408ljm.229.1620274180352; Wed, 05 May 2021 21:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9obE-Dbm5Rwmr=h_34vaps1pcv36Jg0MTS_o0mZHEF1FvA@mail.gmail.com> <6740dcaa-3c43-faf2-826e-1cb3bb113aff@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <6740dcaa-3c43-faf2-826e-1cb3bb113aff@gmx.de>
From: Matt Joras <matt.joras@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 21:09:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CADdTf+gKZwcZD12he2YaGpWpOePZp_EB4J0QoXL6ozfx0BgJDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f56d1405c1a17acc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/gusdziDqYRMEaZ29FBvyC4fXy7k>
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: Thu, 06 May 2021 04:10:05 -0000

On Wed, May 5, 2021, 8:36 PM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 06.05.2021 um 01:18 schrieb Lucas Pardue:
> > Dear QUIC WG,
> >
> > (HTTP WG is bcc'd)
> >
> > As you may be aware, the QUIC v1 specifications entered AUTH48 state
> > recently and they are making good progress (thanks editors!). The HTTP/3
> > and QPACK documents have a dependency on the "HTTP core" documents being
> > worked on in the HTTP WG, so we expect them to take a little longer.
> >
> > The drafts submitted to the RFC editor define QUIC version "0x00000001"
> > [1] and HTTP/3 ALPN identifier "h3". They include the clear instruction
> > "DO NOT DEPLOY THIS VERSION OF {QUIC, HTTP/3} UNTIL IT IS IN AN RFC".
> >
> > HTTP/3 is explicitly tied to a version - the "h3" identifier is expected
> > to be used with QUIC "0x00000001". As several folks have observed on the
> > list [3][4] or in Slack, once the QUIC RFCs are published, 0x00000001
> > can be used in deployment. But the longer lead time for HTTP/3 RFC
> > creates some grey area on what ALPN to use. Waiting for the HTTP/3 RFC
> > delays deployment of QUIC version 1 at the earliest convenience, which
> > is unfortunate given that the design has IETF consensus.
> >
> > The Chairs have tracked various discussions and we believe there is
> > significant deployer interest in deploying "h3" as soon as the QUIC RFCs
> > are published and before the HTTP/3 RFC is published. Furthermore, on
> > balance of the information at hand, we observe a minimal perceived risk
> > with deploying "h3" before the HTTP/3 RFC.
> >
> > This email commences a formal consensus call for permitting the
> > deployment of QUIC "0x00000001" with HTTP/3 ALPN identifier "h3" *once
> > the QUIC RFCs are published*. The call will end on May 13. Please reply
> > to this thread on the QUIC WG list with any additional comments,
> > thoughts or objections before then.
> > ...
>
> You may want to clarify what *exactly* you mean by "the QUIC RFCs".
>

Lucas was referring to C430:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C430


> Best regards, Julian


>