Re: QUIC Version Negotiation Interim

Marten Seemann <> Fri, 23 April 2021 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA263A209C for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_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 zSLr970qDyXg for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A6CB3A209B for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d16-20020a4a3c100000b02901f0590a614eso2576097ooa.8 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:05:51 -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=0SZqIHQ9qOZxrSiKioEHE1ZH9k8mGrp5nZWI5MR1jp0=; b=a8+Chzbt5FIextFY0UPS6AeN5jva009Frqg/saMPgNVU/vtvrFmr573QNnHJREgbKt 6TENvkTUP3GLYKxlrbSTtVc1BNfcLGDM/cIFz6F5yLUhRoKdwhcqszXHN0xPkiMyDfp+ EwJCex0RdR5AoM1ZylJYR2/723yZjxSWkIIVn8MPhz/giwTrZDVmJUkGN6sT+wAKvs9T WEC0/8/5kUrqZsVkclkM1xHv8duUgzeM8onXvXFS5ZpWDWZij7BkUatFwDFUJumzT4Uf eZF8gfT6ygBZkxlmHPJRgdJV+U6FBhVSPAXunRp59Lnhw1ao+WM5pkqlid3HxjI8+dPZ 7eHw==
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=0SZqIHQ9qOZxrSiKioEHE1ZH9k8mGrp5nZWI5MR1jp0=; b=K7j6w7wLce1b8GPoYc4cmiakIifnc6cIJ0rAGL37Mjc2MBR+b75IoGsGCtIHZbsgsT dbKSXnfHSdT7OBZsvmvxSb4RVVPisT1ExLHmc106scU1oEJ0g62S9hSROnk9kad3Lkm4 8Slk4KaGdgDNIpmum8JkNd76N4nAXbNF3zxuL91RCcWyfYXhzKNBiI3yXEQ3v7+udY8o xLo8D1HXlGh1l34GBg/2LUJAYyPm0H7mfwVpg6lcoObIuLRIu1m10cvZLE8uUIOMh32L uf60ZiSEC4dVqKArfglxszoIcgi5lv5Xt61z01OuXT5fYG+/tU/O5O1v0uKwUxB5isPx z6NQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530YE5JwtqAS5D9x+UFp2PA750piZNgrfuS+d3pSoF4Rk4X5RpBQ HE4uUowHLBNAU8lCS6rEF5yY/ok/6VyYkOvoLe4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxnyq/HvxjFG2hdrYPUNO0zHGg9gcWj/vxfjRmtEBxYH3oJnmOZ6kcG5y+HiT26IVTJBKlxPjypslmYB+upGw=
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:da4e:: with SMTP id f14mr1110755oou.88.1619143548046; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Marten Seemann <>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:05:37 +0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: QUIC Version Negotiation Interim
To: Matt Joras <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000592d505c09a3c1d"
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: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:05:55 -0000

Thank you for the summary. Is there a recording of the meeting? Would have
love to attend if it had been at a more suitable time.

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:34 Matt Joras <> wrote:

> Hello all,
> As noted in previous mail, the draft minutes are available here[1]. A
> high level summary of the meeting, as well as next steps, follows.
> About 25 people attended and David kicked us off with a short update
> as editor. Some of the attendees spoke briefly to the ideas that they
> had shared to the list since the last meeting. Watson presented the
> sketch of an alternative mechanism to achieve version negotiation to
> the existing draft[2]. This design was very interesting and provoked
> much discussion. There was, after a time, agreement that such a scheme
> would likely require a change to the QUIC invariants. While not
> strictly impossible there doesn't seem to be much motivation in this
> direction or for making a change of that magnitude at this stage.
> Much of the discussion focused on the notion of "compatible" versus
> "incompatible" version negotiation and whether or not we require just
> one, both, or neither. For definitions of these, please read sections
> 2 and 3 of the draft[2].
> Regarding incompatible version negotiation, several people made
> arguments that incompatible version negotiation is not needed in
> practice today and we are unlikely to need it in the future. As the
> main complexity of the current draft is mostly from incompatible
> version negotiation, there is potentially a benefit from removing it
> as a requirement.
> On the other hand, many people felt strongly that incompatible version
> negotiation is definitely a requirement and they can foresee use cases
> for it. No one present strongly opposed a design which includes
> incompatible version negotiation.
> Similarly, some made the argument that compatible version negotiation
> is also not a requirement. Nominally the same functionality is
> achievable with a single QUIC version, transport parameters, and
> extensions. There were many people who believe there is still value in
> compatible version negotiation. No one present strongly opposed a
> design which includes compatible version negotiation. There was a
> general desire for clarity around when compatible versions should be
> utilized versus simply specifying extensions.
> To help get a sense of the room as the session was coming to an end,
> the chairs took a show of hands for version negotiation requirement
> options.
> The chairs observed emerging consensus for supporting both compatible
> and incompatible version negotiation. We also observed little interest
> in alternatives to the design in the current draft[2]. Therefore the
> proposal is to move ahead with the current draft and incorporate some
> design improvements. Please comment if you disagree with this
> proposal, the consensus call will last for one week until Thursday,
> April 29th.
> Thanks,
> QUIC Chairs
> Lars, Lucas, Matt
> [1]
> [2]