Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work

Dmitri Tikhonov <> Tue, 26 January 2021 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B293A0B37 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:09:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LHPbXMtcZpHB for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:09:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CDB33A0B36 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:09:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r77so16427719qka.12 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:09:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=XztL/BIJAGsAHgC0NdEOeg+T5cZ3Rs1d3DnT5HrN/gU=; b=jquHqKakcmCRU3dJvgC5GY5wJx3ev0j/b0Yn+e0fJ2WeSw67AWpnv2Gfr1AdiT8/kr 3aK4BbMINZaJHXTsW5sxh4zJHs6+0O5guoouco90lUeEHyjJW7/Pf9L56kQ4AW6mH8Sk Mwx6+UvzMKHHu8aEReBBGNdfJ5O6Ur4LVEsxmj/RZfgZtwdjw7mP5QDzfDNrFmuu3qsw 8SeK9K9cxenet2E2qnZiHDIjnuKPeGHiGHn0PrU2+GrEHwNh78Dmt2eAFtv1ufUChH7o vFycX61LigS6ARkik6U+UkfRB/XEUd+qe45HZAOO4QsogqM9K6u57Qq7lZ/rBRJVB8LH 0eIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=XztL/BIJAGsAHgC0NdEOeg+T5cZ3Rs1d3DnT5HrN/gU=; b=ghkgZlCXFoOinCulJ16D55AiFTw0A7B5h4hL4lS8dB6odI237E849LzYKfPu1UKxkd qI/QhqUix1c2ay2onFVqSaw4sH6oQeql4BIWB/oIHEQk8W1RvQ65mBgtuB8bYtVhKo11 XFsHYpJJ2GKWeKFNCBScdGBur9svRUS38hVAdEvGEqxfdE9h+1Xpfq0CvIGh2xeDgJkK B1GEHpjKPeD5A9IaIbZcSY0nvNGiJgks95D3TyLdjUfs7HXCPJWBvoJXei5P3N0GcsPe a6cEmVWcmAg5D/ijtK+8gwJHOWMPPj2BhmVgCF0cASG4V5yVV+qx8Tyq5tcoHb70/IQY EIKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533A0QgKlISZXlsp8Gs+MDayY9xKhI+zJAf0NkpG2F5Y1eEbscLf dKpz+BGG2JSXVJ1Xy6bhwcHi8AKmBuYxIw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzRXNsyt47dqZtiv03aDGRcUN6W4YG97uPGM+5M/A6ECeLZPNpyVXkSkLUQjQlE7NgMjy0scg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1398:: with SMTP id k24mr6659830qki.109.1611680975099; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:09:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from okhta ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t62sm9264239qtd.11.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:09:32 -0500
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <>
Subject: Re: Rechartering QUIC for Post Version 1 Work
Message-ID: <20210126170932.GC364092@okhta>
References: <> <20210126170048.GB364092@okhta> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
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: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:09:38 -0000

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:03:57PM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
> On 2021-1-26, at 19:00, Dmitri Tikhonov <> wrote:
> >> The second area of work is supporting the deployability of QUIC, which
> >> includes specifications and documents, such as it applicability and
> >> manageability statements, improved operation with load balancers, the
> >> specification of a logging format and schemas for QUIC and HTTP/3 endpoints
> >> (qlog), etc.
> > 
> > It would make the charter broader if the particular work areas were not
> > itemized here.  This way, a future work item, such as the (or "a") loss
> > bits extension (which obviosly addresses deployability concerns), cannot
> > be shut down with: "it is not in the second area items list and thus the
> > WG is not chartered to work on it."
> that list is prefaced with "such as", which intends to express that
> those are non-exclusive examples. Do you have a suggestion how to make
> that clearer?

I would dispense with examples and use precedent.  That is, the second
work area is listed simply as "QUIC deployability" in the charter.  Then,
the WG picks up (say) the load balancer draft based on the applicability
of the "deployability" rule.  This establishes precedent what types of
work items the deployability work area covers.  The precedent is used in
the future to figure out which new work items are applicable and which
are not.

  - Dmitri.