Re: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-ietf-quic-transport-26.txt

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

As you saw, -27 was released because it did not include #3169.

The intent of Google and Chrome is to implement and ship -27 as widely
as possible.  There are a number of design issues out for consensus call,
but most should not have significant impact upon deployments and none are
wire format changes.

If the WG would like to declare -27 as a more stable deployment draft, that
sounds great to me, since we intend to operate as though it is unless
something drastic arises.

Ian



On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:08 PM Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> It makes sense to include any TP format change and publish draft-27
> immediately. But independent of that I'd like the WG to declare the
> intended stable draft version. Maybe at the IETF 107 meeting?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 9:08 AM
> To: Praveen Balasubramanian <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-ietf-quic-transport-26.txt
>
>
> On 2/21/2020 8:57 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > On 2/21/2020 8:31 AM, Praveen Balasubramanian wrote:
> >> Draft-26 just dropped with minor changes. The planning discussion in
> IETF 106 was to stabilize and settle on a draft version for six months or
> so to get deployments and data. It'd be nice for implementers to get some
> idea of what that version is supposed to be. I was assuming it'd be
> draft-25 but that's clearly not the case. Are there any more changes that
> are a must have for wide deployment? I think only major security issues or
> deployment blockers would qualify.
> > There are  open 41 PRs, 15 of which are marked "design" . In
> > particular, PR #3169 did not make it into the draft. That PR would
> > change the format of transport parameters. There was a rough consensus
> > to adopt it in Zurich (I was in the rough). Since we don't see it in
> > draft-26, shall we conclude that it was abandoned? Or is "stabilizing
> > for 6 months" just one of those things that people say but don't really
> mean?
>
> On the same topic, there is a poll in the implementers' Slack chat.
> Results so far are 12 votes to "abandon draft-26 and release draft-27
> immediately", 0 against. There seem to be little appetite to rev the
> implementations for minor changes, and a willingness to test the new
> transport parameter format asap.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
>