Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3

David Schinazi <> Wed, 05 May 2021 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37003A26C7; Wed, 5 May 2021 16:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iaqgqGyh4lws; Wed, 5 May 2021 16:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 171DF3A26C6; Wed, 5 May 2021 16:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h127so3534772pfe.9; Wed, 05 May 2021 16:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KK41WJKXQQ2SrSe8Z3xcyQ8CnzNJDh3adzEGH/j7gps=; b=Y+5Ajau848uX7OTkktfzk7yO0dBXmASQn+h0vfagc7HadQB+6BEXF49QGTMZ8LJzVc HI0yDnVOWYNEQWaRai0LU8dZlzKM6oE2+5GDSwGPcSLvPHznWmtlUB6fM1zlMHuY+REC 5/HgeflZ+OenjSmsDb1JRKH747Nj/9N5dVHFNBl4aDBCsNyvfnkaO9kSNfNBbOydTxM0 7+hA64u5ysRty23RVyS51KvGX3E2SwR0GK0Kx+rabx0LWXaPfT58ABOpqnnH4Hkuul0n Aio7gGRnzsf+oE/XLyYMix9QkbhYgy0dSyyVgBDKn+exiopBv1hxtlRallilgAbxy6dK qbGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KK41WJKXQQ2SrSe8Z3xcyQ8CnzNJDh3adzEGH/j7gps=; b=dE6JAjIsi9d6Tx8nByKvQ0fiZXyefT9vbK5X5SF6/9c7Xho/UOowG8vXTej+fc3YRU jP1HzbAPeTSPYtiwBh3u/bovemUiiapnLp4oDeN7DAu0lJ834uymByzKvXV+FuWFGbCi M4FI/OT8MT6IkYzTkpai2B828rkfnfwxcbT9aQE6CYfhd2LiT8r8v8h6bBz7p4/cZx/i tYHugi/b1i0KAxfOrGqxTykRWxepfxG1dc1dKML5Hjzmy0s6NzG2vPl3t/0VnUImgnvi YeeNrpyPzyOCMTtpcZ/ZnWat+ESKevo0htxxY5T+TDXxLvAvr+acLWZPOYDLShLM1wXt FD6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5305vDdK7z2/lVZiMPSftSvdubOLDRkCyqdDE6FkfUk99DGrintE h5xcCpBNAKirMSlCDkAXKc+Z+G+StduOk9awcGk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyR6J/8vso1L2bPG+W95uQG4Q+xCrv2iFqDu0QIPZ8gSAnHKUEZLquy3w0VsIGTE3tNakX9mIg9HBWMR6BZI6A=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1488:b029:28e:908b:5c50 with SMTP id v8-20020a056a001488b029028e908b5c50mr1413740pfu.79.1620258696260; Wed, 05 May 2021 16:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Schinazi <>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 16:51:25 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Consensus on Deploying QUIC v1 with HTTP/3
To: Lucas Pardue <>
Cc: QUIC WG <>, WG Chairs <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000008ff6005c19de010"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 23:51:43 -0000

I support this proposal.

Though I have to ask: does this mean you're going to turn off h3 on until the QUIC RFC ships?


On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 4:19 PM Lucas Pardue <>

> Dear QUIC WG,
> (HTTP WG is bcc'd)
> As you may be aware, the QUIC v1 specifications entered AUTH48 state
> recently and they are making good progress (thanks editors!). The HTTP/3
> and QPACK documents have a dependency on the "HTTP core" documents being
> worked on in the HTTP WG, so we expect them to take a little longer.
> The drafts submitted to the RFC editor define QUIC version "0x00000001"
> [1] and HTTP/3 ALPN identifier "h3". They include the clear instruction "DO
> HTTP/3 is explicitly tied to a version - the "h3" identifier is expected
> to be used with QUIC "0x00000001". As several folks have observed on the
> list [3][4] or in Slack, once the QUIC RFCs are published, 0x00000001 can
> be used in deployment. But the longer lead time for HTTP/3 RFC creates some
> grey area on what ALPN to use. Waiting for the HTTP/3 RFC delays deployment
> of QUIC version 1 at the earliest convenience, which is unfortunate given
> that the design has IETF consensus.
> The Chairs have tracked various discussions and we believe there is
> significant deployer interest in deploying "h3" as soon as the QUIC RFCs
> are published and before the HTTP/3 RFC is published. Furthermore, on
> balance of the information at hand, we observe a minimal perceived risk
> with deploying "h3" before the HTTP/3 RFC.
> This email commences a formal consensus call for permitting the deployment
> of QUIC "0x00000001" with HTTP/3 ALPN identifier "h3" *once the QUIC RFCs
> are published*. The call will end on May 13. Please reply to this thread
> on the QUIC WG list with any additional comments, thoughts or objections
> before then.
> Cheers,
> Lars, Lucas & Matt
> QUIC WG Chairs
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]