Re: Call for Adoption: Invariants

[Eric Kinnear <[e-mail]>]

+1 for adoption. 

Thanks,
Eric


> On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:05 PM, Praveen Balasubramanian <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> +1 for adoption
>  
> From: QUIC [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lubashev, Igor
> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 12:45 PM
> To: Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>; Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Brian Trammell (IETF) <[e-mail]>; Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>; QUIC WG <[e-mail]>; Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>; Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: Call for Adoption: Invariants
>  
> +1 for the adoption.
>  
> The adoption does not mean that the draft will be published exactly like it is right now.  But, as Jana said, I really hope we can settle this one before we settle v1 drafts.
>  
> From: Jana Iyengar [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] 
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 3:16 PM
> To: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Brian Trammell (IETF) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mark Nottingham <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; QUIC WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mike Bishop <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Lars Eggert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Invariants
>  
> +1 for adoption.
>  
> As Ian pointed out, once published, any changes to the invariants will be a significant uphill task for active deployments. That's the entire point of having these invariants. I would very much like to publish the invariants ahead of the rest of the documents, so that active deployment of IETF-QUIC can start, but that's a matter for a different thread, not this one.
>  
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> It could be called QUID ...
>  
> From: Mike Bishop <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 8:00:53 PM
> To: Brian Trammell (IETF); Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
> Cc: Lars Eggert; Mark Nottingham; QUIC WG
> Subject: RE: Call for Adoption: Invariants
>  
> I support adoption.  The way to change the invariants will be to mint a new protocol, and not claim that your new protocol is a version of QUIC.  If it happens to be startlingly similar, all well and good.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: QUIC [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Brian Trammell (IETF)
> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 12:34 AM
> To: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Lars Eggert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mark Nottingham <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; QUIC WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Invariants
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> I support adoption of the invariants draft.
> 
> > On 5 Feb 2018, at 08:51, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > 
> > Only concern is when it takes effect since it likely needs adjustments.
> 
> I'd presume that invariants is published simultaneously with the version 1 spec.
> 
> > And perhaps a procedure to handle invariant changes since everything changes.
> 
> Noted, though the point of declaring something an invariant is to say "the meaning of this part of the wire image, expressed as a bit offset, will never change". You can add constraints to the invariants, but if you think you might remove a constraint, then it's not an invariant by definition.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Brian
> 
> > From: QUIC <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Mark Nottingham <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 7:07:45 AM
> > To: QUIC WG
> > Cc: Lars Eggert
> > Subject: Call for Adoption: Invariants
> > 
> > At the Melbourne meeting, there was strong support for adopting Martin's invariants draft:
> > 
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-quic-invariants-00 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dthomson-2Dquic-2Dinvariants-2D00%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg%26r%3DDjn3bQ5uNJDPM_2skfL3rW1tzcIxyjUZdn_m55KPmlo%26m%3DKX7z_74_SmfCNCCfwbvGUrj14akhnYWFa_jYUsJ9b4s%26s%3DbwNKnbE0d5ngNnELVEa6-RApXxOsA3r9ZZJ9OF448lk%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ce96f6ed5ccf8441255f808d56cd961b8%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636534603270020761&sdata=u3ud%2BPLfNMYQAh3bb2aAWKFbDBQlYuX9xFDwIGJHtaw%3D&reserved=0>
> > 
> > Any objections / concerns about doing so? Unless we hear otherwise, we'll adopt at the end of the week.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/ <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.mnot.net_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg%26r%3DDjn3bQ5uNJDPM_2skfL3rW1tzcIxyjUZdn_m55KPmlo%26m%3DKX7z_74_SmfCNCCfwbvGUrj14akhnYWFa_jYUsJ9b4s%26s%3DWabB1dQco52dWkhJg2dixu9nSahr_7BJChphDgHF-Cs%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ce96f6ed5ccf8441255f808d56cd961b8%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636534603270020761&sdata=atLCZwPjicaw%2BuHfeJg5facYPLAW7jK7cYWsbRIhRa0%3D&reserved=0>