Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

All,

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:18 AM Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Lars, Lucas & Matt
> QUIC WG Chairs
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-34
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-http-34
> [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/AQM3or1TNnInYhWe8UEx5B6nrgw/
> [4]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/M_uWXd2yvucnZwFs66g15ZbpJaM/
>

Hearing no pushback, the chairs declare consensus on permitting the QUIC
wire version "0x00000001" to be deployed with the HTTP/3 ALPN identifier
"h3", once -invariants [1], -transport [2], -tls[3], -recovery[4] are
published as RFC.

The chairs note that a separate question was raised during the consensus
call, about QUIC deployment before -invariants [1], -transport [2],
-tls[3], -recovery[4] are published as RFC. There wasn't much engagement on
this topic, so the current instruction - DO NOT DEPLOY - still stands. If
folks have opinions in this respect, please take it to a different thread
on this list.

Regards
Lucas

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-invariants
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-tls
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-recovery