Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room

Michael Thomas <> Wed, 21 April 2021 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06EF03A2858 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2deYiZcHUALB for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CBC33A2DCB for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c17so29307957pfn.6 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=67v0xfnfUPNYndd3YFOnrP8OzVbeINbHnZUsSbmbsoE=; b=XJVscVDWPCZEAsMhIpYfqcEWHw4KbMzwZkjUrv6eBremiv72mL0V239cg8c/OxiNn9 1wRSq2ptMRDKe1ORqJeqsSzlfQ3KK0RRQgQ8dmmEAzrZiG/LVx45uv9mRjoPLdeJDv90 +0JjGQwObJ+sGncpDnzJAZIp49sqK8vEl2Fg9SnVP80DBBvVPI3PcTnlD0vmt6x28pAk 68qzoMZCjXrtRaZgmLk7UPiSxpsUmKxIYnW20f2zCXI2c0AgsIX2NOzTsXzff80lvMX5 INe9dZrsg8UZfDOc/TdYt4/XLqdiYpmSeZGBUtGq18rlWadQFeoabuOpQ5clRrisMvfi G5Kw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=67v0xfnfUPNYndd3YFOnrP8OzVbeINbHnZUsSbmbsoE=; b=ptoxJcfV8X3KVicG+IGtlHpliSnvQjLNL15LKtUimu/dnVUncsN0n2MrZSrSH/8nuB Wp4yycdFHnqDsBkTYVLj0IXarCdsmVR4qFDUN9QuxSxJtgflgh6hujsJj26a1Bn6R5/2 OoqGig7qRxJ4Y1/2elOB/wvN8fW5/rLj+g0d7V5Tjy47czhN9DnvBbbehUNuu9TMyIih 8ti24jMipacXmX6pqanOWlyaeLn74DlEVL0JUghWRUYnXf8YWpPTh4oWArsx9L4w2iz7 60Ca+5qx+9uP3wzkLOqFxgsFdUNttITS7oxU5xlppeE+bQtELQf/UVOtBZRLPONRcUPf NnKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LTMA1HnlsAjVJNX3ebxyv3Yr6Yh8wYXsitnCPQ5KMRyWuZ8TN dY2XeiL0G8sZAtrHcRGnASBcdg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxkQxgzBjaGHUZZgyw17oZPiTgqB114T75ib3BwVKSFPBZkZN1fIg5PAG2TOlPysyPW69GpTg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:f30b:: with SMTP id l11mr10321119pgh.129.1619021480099; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 15sm453336pgb.61.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Quic: the Elephant in the Room
To: Lars Eggert <>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <>, David Schinazi <>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <>, IETF QUIC WG <>, Matt Joras <>, Lucas Pardue <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:11:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:11:26 -0000

On 4/21/21 7:16 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2021-4-21, at 16:57, Michael Thomas <> wrote:
>> And that was apparently enough to cause the chairs to go ballistic. It       was not polite whatsoever. It was a first class snarl.
> the message that was sent said: "This thread is not discussing a QUIC-specific issue. There are more appropriate venues to discuss the merits of TLS, DANE and PKIs. Please take it there."
> I'm struggling to interpret those three sentences as "going ballistic", or being a "first class snarl". With all due respect, I think you are overreacting.
I am a newcomer. I came here against my better judgement as I stated on 
the IETF list. I immediately had my head chopped off and told to go away 
by a working group chair in less than 24 hours. If the number of packets 
exchanged in the initial handshake of a transport protocol is off topic, 
I am speechless. My better judgement wasn't that it was off topic, it 
was that this outcome is the ordinary behavior of insular IETF working 

I also got told that signing a zone is tantamount to "boiling the 
ocean". As IETF chair, do you agree with that? Because if it's true then 
there are serious issues with DNSSec and we should do something about 
it. I think it's nonsense, fwiw.

Mike, and what exactly are those venues? tia.