IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 29 June 2017 00:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0766C126C83 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMxwipgHmTWZ for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97F861200ED for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id t127so31236462ywc.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MmdMDcu2ZuEhWPIOmEzJRTk9IUWm74R4HF8mdbV5Ans=; b=fNZ0CAJlL/TFnOQ1hBrhYGKkSedwsyxHeo9W345dtaKgR4YDRwo2GTqnndbG3URYUV PQUh/k3WV+5sAsI5/4Ta1vNCw8bQRQJ40uC9uiPCTPRNdOAmCAzxeHxQzgHSRH7v8tnc fXB6VR991BHkpk9qs2oRMiYFDABeNsf/XwWfZsfEVTvRVGfa4iCa9/n0kj+dWfasT+IJ izWr0J7lqSn/AhEO2oqCu/5JzSCl+vDkQv8OvV7DJueWmWQBpSyWoMTHEnkVvJKlF+W9 FFZgq/CLvx8a9koIsHL2bKn9hesn1HMhZzTRNy4k47KKVZrroi/Cl5W0Z1+vr8RuDQ7J P96g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MmdMDcu2ZuEhWPIOmEzJRTk9IUWm74R4HF8mdbV5Ans=; b=EosmOwlQHWH8+wP5JulzUuCQDYFXeTj80h00lsy+kU9MuawFt1JHdin1Nt9zD/dtGq YDQI0Nnqm4t7zIC27laDHx8uybKVsR0Hy+QcMvijUD1xXxbIhZT0WFv6K9I3Lx8Kqq0j QSJmp9tvew2bf3PQxYlKG7xskgY7fPmT+R48eoMwEkutInQCwCLf6yuCLNr8j2m7FW0p liIxnyt76euOsJ+td3ecEzSy4FdZ0pbfTM+G+yS9vvxyxTJ+WHFU1c/loM/cIGTa3XOZ IlzA7+L6unkjHCrO1TCNCGA1wAYb1S74PqQUZzNvm+HSST/nAcL2irY0A8Cjdk6LmLTL shEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzwSixuklBxMQlkcDDerxyouilJknJivQFdHsuW2U2pKeYAeu5T u582oyp3gIkWXVJk42Hj93G4ymKTs6te
X-Received: by 10.129.109.206 with SMTP id i197mr3548673ywc.24.1498697947563; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.215.9 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPyZ6=K6BDwR4inuukpZ2M4tED5x_=cR=30dPPzbcco1yozDQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOdDvNreiyrk1bpGc5Cu0OXyO1KDGk25USYM7jz5GpXQCdUpfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMat+zRrBG1WxiE0O7owDqksR8-JAujPxPOT89p3TgtQw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gNALLfD7fbpLs=bjFP9oOpx_efJndNtsKT21S5ADDYn1w@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUD3tRdci95TgGqg4xPZeV=knCug=EoNw-S+3oatx_G8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZZRGKdxV=Bx1Qb1t9XER_UsdmFBtC+mmy4qoOey5BvMrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyZ6=K6BDwR4inuukpZ2M4tED5x_=cR=30dPPzbcco1yozDQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:58:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPqf2zoMxV_7OMjFFdp9b=1JRWTJp0G79LU5heequcxpA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2 Points of First Implementation Draft we might clarify
To: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Cc: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114dd266ca5c8a05530ece6c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/s3OTpOcYaoFOHfSKcfDhBRsEf9s>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:59:10 -0000

I don't think it's disastrous to use -18, as that's what people have
generally fielded.

If/when people feel comfortable in their -20 branches, it would be good to
change to that, however.

-Ekr


On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 June 2017 at 14:10, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote:
>>> > Would only supporting 18 cause problems for anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone using OpenSSL would have a real hard time.
>>>
>>
>> Is anyone planning to use OpenSSL for the interop?
>>
>>
> ​I originally planed to use OpenSSL, but it turns out that it does not
> have TLSv1.3 exporter yet.
> I can live with boringssl (-18) for the first implementation draft.
>
> Best regards,
> Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa​
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email