Re: What was the QUIC Load Balancers resolution?

Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> Wed, 27 June 2018 08:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.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 DE00312872C for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 01:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=litespeedtech-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 s1RKcXC1e294 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 01:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (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 551171277D2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 01:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 69-v6so4469151wmf.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 01:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=XgRxAvZpPysLOYMN9QOg+BqH2tHIsTQIHfjjVVwnnaI=; b=HXjo45Vg/M7Z4YaeKy5lobY+trrfG4wggwJ47ZqgKEJcudEcjqr9rR6JMkztC20fiK u4j+n68VxoFqH+HHwggNhPZHAD8rxGogwBh1oE655azbkhKBhzE9yj8gqpQ2I6CiscIF S5XpSzWPRLxUvuCaO7UHOGEdD5RK72TKDjepoNQVOtk8ijK0D0JCN1GR1cgqqz9VctTp 9KtR1KrfPnaRG/dHXcRtzjx0Iai+4/uYyDdnQETUyyk9EUtK80t1xKVO5x0K8YFR24zc lt14OPE/rjUbTDno9subF8ODd7xTkI5nFhHHVwwd9kL6GiNvMcsNb+3GB0XE39sdvngi W0Sg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=XgRxAvZpPysLOYMN9QOg+BqH2tHIsTQIHfjjVVwnnaI=; b=J93ASzSLM4Sf67fOAviN5RwuRdj+dRGkqCwjIn0/UnH7NGlprprUH4aXvCMrcJY/0b 9s+aTExPVoN5siwrX2Fj9onWg5XRKE+VmUuz9QhbzA83AdAzSknvi4mWUPBau6Uo8PFM gjv/N0eF4xrJiKZnET0vC8+6Jwl+V8FBnA7eTk6dnaP07hiasLRT9L09Gm5eIoJCbxGO WadGNFhsFB19XT5VnOW9tz754bIaBg/7DFJb0o2Tr4Dj/YS0oEAVxcNNQlyVawdbLufZ hdTuuxUQrbXq9ukBdBplb3k8sbTrbJZ5KndFWExdLgRJN88r4qq0O6N1qmqv9KXzx2OD MHig==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0VwZ5cVlKBv59ArkEml1WETOEvWI1UFL+s6HDeCOUazfKjkoK2 O5DHrV7fE6zqlCnzRycoGg3U/w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpe/ima42GAc31K2nWLOVP+mx6aKLzu0qVCii8FwLfkDNi2waiBzRSNJ4tiDkEUM38yT/UywOw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:dcd:: with SMTP id 196-v6mr4192546wmn.131.1530088502860; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 01:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ubuntu-dmitri ([62.214.4.67]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b16-v6sm4429522wrm.15.2018.06.27.01.35.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 01:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 04:34:51 -0400
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: What was the QUIC Load Balancers resolution?
Message-ID: <20180627083450.GA15604@ubuntu-dmitri>
Mail-Followup-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
References: <20180608153916.GC13418@ubuntu-dmitri> <BYAPR08MB39443501DF857AFF6DA75E97DA7B0@BYAPR08MB3944.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAM4esxRuhUmFJOmwXbM3Hn5460vukXxoGmWcDzLGqBKX-cALeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxRuhUmFJOmwXbM3Hn5460vukXxoGmWcDzLGqBKX-cALeQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/uwOiirJH39gmvZDZK3OxVpl_dwA>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 08:35:06 -0000

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:01:54PM -0700, Martin Duke wrote:
> Yes, there was no firm conclusion. There were some recommendations on what
> the side channel should be, general agreement that this was a good thing to
> be working on, and general reluctance for the QUIC WG to do much work here.
> 
> That said, there are some email discussions going on and we're going to
> continue work on the draft Dmitri, would you like to be a part of this?

Yes, I would -- please count me in.

  - Dmitri.