Re: [QUIC] Alissa Cooper's Yes on charter-ietf-quic-00-01: (with COMMENT)

Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> Tue, 13 September 2016 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jri@google.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 E8E4012B1CC for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 7rF9FK1rqQ4s for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (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 1FDF812B1A8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id m62so107986214vkd.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=G7kBmCPt38s6YJlNk6lKeeZtnEzAd0sCmpspMvIlU7M=; b=ohw3dCmtRaNq7VEGusfoq+g/nE5ZLMOEKa8j7/bZ0Ql9B7GTenF6l2/AIrJByJkimH WferA8IobhXYs5Ep6ZVZxvUeGT2QlJVlPRwDvOpdFTGq11xNaMMwCNct8FMo3ErQsh/1 tSoGhBk0N0oetBEjxa3GdUecalNM+VRHrpkDQNmE+u+8XcMmaeMnctsG7dLish7I/IpY T0WFNxRpOaJV0tKkdCunTa6BMxneCTdXZz+sKzltPwwfqFscRsKIFUf7xT/qtUrk2gwX IiDsjPzphURbh+ubPcKqIprK4cPvY/FRnDMeMlz1OfiGvc5lqU4T54tPB8sKmcToneRy q/pA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=G7kBmCPt38s6YJlNk6lKeeZtnEzAd0sCmpspMvIlU7M=; b=Rg/WG6/tyuz4Z9nfgp1yA3rJvaFZhXQZA3sR94sF5E5XC02qz7L3JKKA77/jo4+KoD xFTgUeRbzL9doxJm9zGCQR/d4zn0yjTnR+CVAI46bmHs4M0QrGcTqELgcZR4h+A5a4I7 LGy2uK3UI4ObbdchnZQfkwc8xdGoTdm10aMHCGf49G5PlqGWnzQf/ncg/oZVvZwc5Bw3 HQNODacsHY5aTEzaU61vVnbL2SlAokrIUZXc4MRAjZ5l+Kdi6PcvWNl8uTNGc7xzFX97 r9IbHp0EqJgL3GOMZGcksmT+UDdrP9xIIgPxkdmaOVWbFaI5fd3l2diHrrgaF/gb9yF1 AYUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOVtfLu1ZHwAu58qL7ANGovigjg5RZnRDEJ9dZiTlLCVjzx+KAJNtZr0DW8uHSLKkYStHU5ivRWR7sIlN2S
X-Received: by 10.31.7.73 with SMTP id 70mr15353414vkh.157.1473737819026; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.116.130 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNDGQT141+9Q-YJRsuVrWGD=SDdeeFaKe0=iNwb+1ckLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <147273767703.10217.5299850397860146217.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-dE_q2iNFLn_BFqPoy1V4kBnxGkbAiGzjyFkDdj6+gMBw@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNDGQT141+9Q-YJRsuVrWGD=SDdeeFaKe0=iNwb+1ckLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:36:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGD1bZbEauJk-LBJkMzQCCtkkEhi--btk=yXM0Nu1SSZofTyxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143d70c325737053c5b5311"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/yjTRcPe9j9ncVrmvRD2xKj5F0Xs>
Cc: quic-chairs@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [QUIC] Alissa Cooper's Yes on charter-ietf-quic-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list to discuss QUIC standardization <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: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 03:37:03 -0000

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> I had a few comments on the draft charter:
>
> > There is emerging implementation and deployment experience with QUIC, a
> > UDP-based protocol that provides a stream-multiplexing encrypted
> transport.
> > Based on that implementation and deployment experience, the QUIC working
> group
> > will provide a standards track specification generalizing the design
> described
> > in the initial set of draft-tsvwg-quic-protocol, draft-tsvwg-quic
> -loss-recovery,
> > and related documents.
>
> "initial set" is ungrammatical here. Strike it.
>
>
> > Key goals for QUIC are:
> >
> > - Minimizing connection establishment and overall transport latency for
> > applications, starting with HTTP/2;
> > - Providing multiplexing without head-of-line blocking;
> > - Enabling deployment over unmodified Internet paths; and
> > - Enabling multipath and forward error correction extensions.
>
> I would like to see a security objective here, as I think we all agree
> that it's a first-class priority.
>
> - Providing secure transport by default using TLS 1.3.
>
>
> > This work will ensure that
> > QUIC using TLS1.3 has security and privacy properties that are at least
> as good
> > as a stack composed of TLS1.3 using TCP (or MPTCP when using multipath).
>
> This "QUIC using TLS 1.3" language is a little weird. I would just say
> "QUIC". I believe MT provided a similar comment.
>

At the moment, QUIC is being defined in the initial docs to be the
transport protocol that requires a handshake mechanism. This is why the
TLS1.3 mapping document exists separate from the QUIC document. It would be
odd to just say QUIC if you mean QUIC + TLS1.3.

> The third focus area will describe mappings between specific
> applications???
> > semantics and the transport facilities of QUIC. The first mapping will
> be a
> > description of HTTP/2 semantics using QUIC, specifically with the goal
> of
> > minimizing web latency using QUIC. This mapping will accommodate the
> extension
> > mechanisms defined in the HTTP/2 specification. Upon completion of that
> mapping,
> > additional protocols may be added by updating this charter to include
> them.
>
> I'm not sure this should be in QUIC so much as HTTP. Minimally it somehow
> needs to be in cooperation and I don't see anything here. I certainly don't
> want this to preclude a mapping of only HTTP/2's transport facilities.
>

I don't expect this work to necessarily show up in the QUIC wg later, but
there may be parts of this work that do show up. I think there's value in
stating that other apps will be considered in the future, but I don't have
a strong opinion on what the charter should say about work that is to be
done post re-charter. Can you send a PR?


> -Ekr
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Alissa,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>>
>>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>>> charter-ietf-quic-00-01: Yes
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-quic/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> What is the status of these PRs?
>>> https://github.com/IETF-QUIC/Charter/pulls
>>
>>
>> I checked two of the PRs. One looks like it's reflected in the
>> datatracker, but the other does not. I'll make sure the proponents think
>> the datatracker text reflects what they want to go with, before this goes
>> for external review.
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> QUIC mailing list
>> QUIC@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> QUIC mailing list
> QUIC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic
>
>