Re: draft-30 non-implementable, please

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Christian,

I think the issue is that for many of us a one-line change can take weeks
or months to propagate to the field, so there will be more version
mismatches in the meantime.

I suppose if all h3-30s also support h3-29, there's no issue, but that's a
weird thing to mandate.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:25 AM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> If that's true, then supporting draft-30 in picoquic in addition to draft
> 29 is just a one-line change. Good way to test version aliasing.
> On 8/11/2020 11:13 AM, Ian Swett wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of anything that I expect to cause interop problems, but the
> other editors may have something in mind.  In particular, there are no wire
> format changes or new mechanisms that if you don't implement, the
> connection fails.
>
> I was thinking we would roll the changes into the existing -29, rather
> than shipping -30 as an ALPN and Alt-Svc.
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 2:04 PM Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> I am happy to defer to the editors as to whether their change requires
>> interoperability changes or not. My quick scan of the diff doesn't
>> immediately reveal anything that would actually cause an issue, but I might
>> be wrong.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 10:55 AM Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> whoops [1]
>>>
>>> [1] -
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-quic-transport&url2=https://quicwg.github.io/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.txt
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 6:54 PM Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 6:46 PM Ryan Hamilton <[e-mail]>
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Completely agree. If -30 is compatible with -29 let's keep the same
>>>>> "on the wire" versioning so that we can maximize the probability of
>>>>> successful communication!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Speaking as an individual, the struggle I have is that 29 to 30 is not
>>>> a no-op. You can look at the current diff for transport [1] and see that
>>>> we're sarig down the barrel of 10 design issues with proposals. So as an
>>>> endpoint that implements 30-not-30, if I speak to an endpoint that is
>>>> barely-29 and I have issues, what is my recourse? I really don't want to
>>>> get into UA sniffing to build in branching code...
>>>>
>>>> Lucas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>