QUICv2
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Mon, 18 October 2021 23:48 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 C35E33A0C86 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 wruTfE00-cLC for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa30.google.com (mail-vk1-xa30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a30]) (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 CF6AD3A0C85 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa30.google.com with SMTP id r26so94426vkq.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PinVMU2I3SoECdMHqMzUtlzMZ5EJeCQH/2hKEGvMrAM=; b=KNhXK9dm0cBLd1lyo/zmBKZn9YaBrclQKI+sMPGyaLlb2k3xm9RJ63+WcpYgw0Xl5x Jagg1pprvXLqoPI/PUjT0+qCaCDMJvOcBl0hAvDTXi9wW2KoegbgWfNXKHrcFJXXLRM4 ukOZlO2Dn+A4g9phjZPgF43DfkEy9V1GiPbqxYu9TzrmASCd1yPI+KyKUjzOH3fIjYRn yevZU509/pEp/N38ZVaV/jqKPBZMFEVToZZyB2OmKt9GWJ45Pq0+HwbjKaGCTpgpa2zv 2p7fAXYr6mUq6XIpQJsgP8xlhS/kY/3O3sBHOJkx4osZDgTwxBMSYRymLahaPSnHKGqM Ev7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PinVMU2I3SoECdMHqMzUtlzMZ5EJeCQH/2hKEGvMrAM=; b=WDxonNT2SkdvsGb3js8WMSkNrQXMzv8+fFMHWbtpo04T6MH6opqt8zfrzTArKnm8Ro iJO3W8MOCccNFuhwEx2koq+wLB0WQaPcDDZSrKGH3ZzY4QiL7QzgXWNNCRveAjQeGQva OXL8Ychs+jDpTDvYStm/loGAQ5ZmsiuB+V1QcuRDyUWMYCrODbnWKCOihqiP0j9p283N wbWabJILZzINzWqUvfahhsu8ZPpOVLAkxNn/f8PZnwzvoRDGRbsm5wvW8ERM8yQD48Ih Btn7BOGUmaGPlVFZVTL9WQ5XZ+Q/RTiehgaVB6uByW3R4di3ird52M20z2aZyY+sQFl9 bqnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532cLgtAJWzkit/AWcdOZkVoYAqbG0tI5U0dk3cf3Zk54ShH+YtF ysyRHZIVtwc/AsooCBvKWgIYspxyIbf0YU3OYiFJiUa36QQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxcExNjHhLxb9Gbn3JyKX4wy6oH8G4uNSQngWH3cHmuZ7Q5OxvwpEG80EdiV7ZjDm4BWx5Vb0MZhLiRMPskvGw=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2e50:: with SMTP id u77mr28832202vku.5.1634600891185; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:48:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQNkXCMUxm=jihxPd_kRVKxggKCZC5DGD1DkDunyDCRDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: QUICv2
To: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000077fe1d05cea92d49"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/u61uHenU4ni9Vr5SW9jZhr_WXOc>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 23:48:16 -0000
Hello QUIC enthusiasts, I would like to remind you of the QUICv2 individual draft: https://github.com/martinduke/draft-duke-quic-v2 This draft spurred some interesting questions about ALPN and version numbering conventions that we briefly discussed at IETF 111, but didn't resolve. Discussion here: https://youtu.be/R7q8cWIAIDQ?t=6233, although I've closed the issue in github <https://github.com/martinduke/draft-duke-quic-v2/issues/5> for now. There has been loose talk in the past about shipping a v2 relatively quickly for various reasons. The draft is pretty simple, and I suspect there's not much more polishing to be done -- but I've been surprised before! So, if people are interested in doing this, let's adopt it. If no one actually wants to deploy it, I'll stop working on it. Thoughts? Do we need to discuss it at IETF 112? Or is there a reason to defer an adoption call? Martin
- QUICv2 Martin Duke