Re: Call for Consensus: Moving HTTP/3, QPACK and Recovery to the Late-Stage Process

Mark Nottingham <> Mon, 25 November 2019 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A882D120FA1 for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:58:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=J36u0cWX; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=Q5aRxaWi
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iRLLmZPMdBaq for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:58:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5EFD120F97 for <>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CCDC95A; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:58:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:58:27 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=U /MwSve5QsP2Jv7Of1GVhJxJdLcsVURHcXN8fo7cYAo=; b=J36u0cWXMwnzcoAeo 40bvRzAigNmCqLYomAgYwgOs+5EvW3m97GeuHBuUYoqqqOSc1ZiiGfEAvALPiAKb JH6Vypo1do1UI1PGnEhDHhNv/Eq9ivN3gwjZxlYwtvE55eb5RJBzLEfklhcoHrcM xFOWQmINBz9+f+qIws576rkgpbIcHiKh8hXK7bPakQ1EKzAP4nPxhLMlQcOph4uv RXMebwC5gunlX6aFHIf8fH/OJSzRPk8nQ26ldXXaFHi9ovqShoj3UHrSzJKRz2lq 6oX0igU6wuabWovm99qd3nFJm6uSUANFKChX1P4mdjy+sFVET5x6jqkj2Pv1TIgt DfPog==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=U/MwSve5QsP2Jv7Of1GVhJxJdLcsVURHcXN8fo7cY Ao=; b=Q5aRxaWioG8ctE7g5Fl9cggdTW4TLUkbjAYYfO0JBN3+6KaDnTh3aGana kq+3JbGpHVFfpE7/y6Eez0W5GPBhQKkD7tHnXzi64oOWk/8jsUpvd0Q9/e1zJ+UA SoFTNjyZR3TyE1lAoGMr5nx/tgTbTlhlAvzPQ/s8G4pWu+p1UhlNKDyK1fqyXyfR lu3tPPDhjxZxOItlwsAApRMSwoboKlzgRGHyk3PA0DpehkR/yrsKWNBVzXof6i6G SSO0I6W1t5M7VMVwQ9orjY5BVzlQT5W22xXq02OoCWdiPDjld0j7jZBkOLh+KR+C 6TFlSothV0npMbZCBQEYlhCaY+f/w==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:gU7cXfPlcWcaIh6ob_rQGVf5X4v9OB4ADuEZt3yk8m8S8reQT7xvwA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudeiuddgudehiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeforghr khcupfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuffhomhgrih hnpehhthhtphefrghnughqphgrtghkughrrghfthhsthhothhhrghtphhrohgtvghsshgr shifvghllhdrrghspdhgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeduud elrddujedrudehkedrvdehudenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehm nhhothdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:gk7cXYkuy4bA1dKoIqdpM2uODu4zavn8yzJh7q9pvtJxCvFDuckIMg> <xmx:gk7cXd51WOlX-Vg7friMDpDukyEV5rVrfxWeIua-2qREFtP7EjpIYw> <xmx:gk7cXZ4EwYHE5mPZneR5Arb91uVzSQu6GJ1xWtEj_xrIIocu8KI-PA> <xmx:gk7cXWKImr-uQTf8w95gro9CVVAK0fK4VYtPpLeM3KLKLiwhP5qb4g>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CEA7D8005A; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:58:23 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: Call for Consensus: Moving HTTP/3, QPACK and Recovery to the Late-Stage Process
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:58:20 +1100
Cc: Lars Eggert <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:58:29 -0000

These documents are now in the late-stage process.


> On 6 Nov 2019, at 12:01 pm, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
> Previously, we've moved to the 'late-stage process' documented at [1] for the Transport and TLS drafts. The chairs and editors now feel that it's time to move the Recovery, HTTP/3, and QPACK drafts to that process as well.
> As before, this is because we're getting to a stage we feel the documents would benefit from slower and slightly more formal process, so that the rate of change is not so high, changes that do occur are well-vetted, and the documents get closer to reflecting consensus in the working group.
> If we do this, we're saying that we have gained consensus on what remains in these documents, excepting their outstanding issues. As per our charter:
> """
> Note that consensus is required both for changes to the current protocol mechanisms and retention of current mechanisms. In particular, because something is in the initial document set does not imply that there is consensus around the feature or around how it is specified.
> """
> That doesn't mean that new issues can't be raised against those drafts. However, new issues against them will be judged for whether they contain new information (in particular, security or interoperability impact), a clear technical defect, or have significant (in the judgement of the chairs) support for further discussion. If the issue isn't well-described or atomic, it may be closed with a request to refactor, or refactored for you.
> Again, this does not affect editorial issues.
> Practically speaking, it means that new issues will be triaged by the Chairs -- not the editors (although they can still "claim" purely editorial issues) -- and those that don't meet the criteria above will be closed. Those that do will be labeled (again, by the Chairs only) as `design`.
> It also means that all of the closed `design` issues against these drafts will be marked as `has-consensus`. Additionally, the `quicv2` issues against them will be closed and marked `has-consensus`.
> The issues that will be labeled `has-consensus` (and closed, if still open) are listed here:
> We believe that all of these issues have been discussed and the group has formed consensus on them; this only formalises that.
> If you have concerns or questions, please discuss them on-list; barring pushback, we'll adopt this on 15-Nov-2019.
> Cheers,
> 1.
> --
> Mark and Lars, QUIC WG Chairs

Mark Nottingham