Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3

Lucas Pardue <> Mon, 17 May 2021 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7CD3A3403; Mon, 17 May 2021 04:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 JQZtOSuPcy_c; Mon, 17 May 2021 04:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ABB83A3401; Mon, 17 May 2021 04:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s22so8418308ejv.12; Mon, 17 May 2021 04:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QABWeNoJSyGjN7e1VIlOJCm4HZ84HAzjJsBxY6QYpyk=; b=gEH8NmmF1V27trvnwwtBw63KmyyI4wJxpQFvvIbc3ns2ZzjKVp9LXuxHnkf3Ijow2i tkqeTTqVGbOzCfOwF9TBFEKiUOg02Mgk/68KKr7G1eMl56HtMSwjeX9ckD2Ypyf/WqDN Z3TP/6u6tSLJ5BhR/FzcacVv6IC+qWXG+6kYi0e7/TZo1Wh6e3ftl2jWRlXyoPqv9GDj 3AVcVt7neRMsW5NKkLe62gUef8v8ThNo4N0ru00mRIpZIDfsVPan1UMLEuOtSTR6Khr1 bbMyHz2dUQB4wAclN+vmP8fKq15dXdZ53QSmkFtxQBVFeTqtxZP1YesKwzhADatLFivW +0XA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QABWeNoJSyGjN7e1VIlOJCm4HZ84HAzjJsBxY6QYpyk=; b=BsPpYWTna/5sxBVR2ogCZDD7BAVR38KchQ2NsQUM/PZrzXT0DNkknM4mYbuK9jJ0lQ KaFluX2FQxzKKJmW39aT98a884qgdKk5TG89uVpVwP9DAM8EPmcOZJtg0wdNSBftQbdS TVd3raizDr6iGD3eA745fhVT7gbnvgBCLZK9qdS0bHfgum/jjPHPBRRWI1eQ/LQg/8vW HGkgNuFTkk3rGib3dkGm4nogvAvQc042P1i8olj416gj+e0095V7S/Zd667izf25L+Gq LjUVJENfP7e4Z68dVtgtR0OIhG8clQNT02Fk05ScbU1em/ZgKO1Mxjm5uEKz/xWxjavg cOLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531SKSczbu/Rb8vpt6H0vzPPw+dSIrpHNa1Nnkj1DWkR88lB1vrT GHrDCGrBFg3sDK97v/uVbujGev7gEswq6RqJj21VMpoynTI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdasDZ+GikxBPSYAWUKXPJ940yEJXvhUOSedGWw+e6peExREq/aa2fomrqiR8GySFClaJri/bhktYCnCZEteQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5488:: with SMTP id r8mr34000843ejo.374.1621250397842; Mon, 17 May 2021 04:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 12:19:45 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3
To: QUIC WG <>
Cc: WG Chairs <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000e315205c284c603"
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, 17 May 2021 11:20:05 -0000


On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:18 AM Lucas Pardue <>

> 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
> 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]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]

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.