Subject: Where we're at

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:30:30 +1100

Everyone,

As some have noticed, draft -17 is shaping up to include a number of changes we didn't anticipate in Bangkok, due to the continuing discussions we've had. As a result, while we've talked about raising the bar for changes in them around this time, it looks like we'll be delaying that, so that people have an opportunity to review those changes and discuss any concerns that arise.

The editors have been working to address the issues to the best of their ability. As always, what they incorporate is effectively a proposal to the working group; they do not necessarily represent consensus on every aspect. Please keep this in mind when reviewing the next set of drafts.

A number of new issues have also been raised; I'd encourage people to look through and add any thoughts they have:
 https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adesign+-label%3Aparked+-label%3Aquicv2
... since we'll need to discuss them and come to a conclusion before we can move forward. In Bangkok, we also talked about reviewing the "parked" issues; that will not occur until we've stabilised the drafts. 

Note that "I think this issue should be closed without action / punted to v2" is valid feedback. On the other hand, if you feel that an issue has been closed (or parked) without due consideration, please bring it to the attention of the chairs, or the group as a whole.

We still aim to do interop based upon -17 in Tokyo. Beyond that, it's not clear whether this will have impact upon our revised milestones, but that should become clear soon.

Regards,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Ian Swett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 23:19:27 -0500

Thanks Mark.

Now that draft 17 is out, I would like to raise to bar on issues that are
particularly important for interop and deployment
 1) Changes to the header  ie: The QUIC bit and header protection
 2) Changes to frame encoding and meaning
 3) TLS mapping changes
 4) Long header changes(VN, Retry, etc)

We're hoping to gain deployment experience with draft 17(or possibly 18 if
it arrives soon), so I would like to raise to bar on changes to the above 4
bullets unless anyone objects?

In contrast, I know there is less implementation experience with HTTP/3,
recovery, and some portions of the transport draft, such as connection
migration and PMTU.  In those cases, I think it's appropriate to allow more
changes until the WG has more experience.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 6:30 PM Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Everyone,
>
> As some have noticed, draft -17 is shaping up to include a number of
> changes we didn't anticipate in Bangkok, due to the continuing discussions
> we've had. As a result, while we've talked about raising the bar for
> changes in them around this time, it looks like we'll be delaying that, so
> that people have an opportunity to review those changes and discuss any
> concerns that arise.
>
> The editors have been working to address the issues to the best of their
> ability. As always, what they incorporate is effectively a proposal to the
> working group; they do not necessarily represent consensus on every aspect.
> Please keep this in mind when reviewing the next set of drafts.
>
> <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adesign+-label%3Aparked+-label%3Aquicv2>
> .... since we'll need to discuss them and come to a conclusion before we
> can move forward. In Bangkok, we also talked about reviewing the "parked"
> issues; that will not occur until we've stabilised the drafts.
>
> Note that "I think this issue should be closed without action / punted to
> v2" is valid feedback. On the other hand, if you feel that an issue has
> been closed (or parked) without due consideration, please bring it to the
> attention of the chairs, or the group as a whole.
>
> We still aim to do interop based upon -17 in Tokyo. Beyond that, it's not
> clear whether this will have impact upon our revised milestones, but that
> should become clear soon.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:34:47 -0800

On 12/18/2018 8:19 PM, Ian Swett wrote:
>
> Now that draft 17 is out, I would like to raise to bar on issues that
> are particularly important for interop and deployment
> We're hoping to gain deployment experience with draft 17(or possibly
> 18 if it arrives soon), so I would like to raise to bar on changes to
> the above 4 bullets unless anyone objects?
>
> In contrast, I know there is less implementation experience with
> HTTP/3, recovery, and some portions of the transport draft, such as
> connection migration and PMTU.  In those cases, I think it's
> appropriate to allow more changes until the WG has more experience.

Seems like a good idea. We have to keep this thing stable if we want to
ship, and we will gain way more knowledge from a shipping product than
from prototypes and discussions. Plus, there will be a V2.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Subodh Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 04:36:51 +0000

We're hoping to get deployment experience with draft-17 as well, and completely agree that raising the bar on these changes is the appropriate thing to do.

Subodh

________________________________
From: QUIC <[email-masked]> on behalf of Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 8:34:47 PM
To: Ian Swett; Mark Nottingham
Cc: Lars Eggert; IETF QUIC WG
Subject: Re: Where we're at

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:04:19 +1100

Hi Ian,

Lars and I are talking about changes to our work mode that would include this; we'll have a proposal to share with the group soon.

Cheers,

> On 19 Dec 2018, at 3:19 pm, Ian Swett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Mark.
> 
> Now that draft 17 is out, I would like to raise to bar on issues that are particularly important for interop and deployment
> We're hoping to gain deployment experience with draft 17(or possibly 18 if it arrives soon), so I would like to raise to bar on changes to the above 4 bullets unless anyone objects?
> 
> In contrast, I know there is less implementation experience with HTTP/3, recovery, and some portions of the transport draft, such as connection migration and PMTU.  In those cases, I think it's appropriate to allow more changes until the WG has more experience.
> 
> .... since we'll need to discuss them and come to a conclusion before we can move forward. In Bangkok, we also talked about reviewing the "parked" issues; that will not occur until we've stabilised the drafts. 
>

---

From: Ian Swett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:30:58 -0500

Thanks Mark, I look forward to your proposal.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:04 AM Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Ian,
>
> Lars and I are talking about changes to our work mode that would include
> this; we'll have a proposal to share with the group soon.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > We're hoping to gain deployment experience with draft 17(or possibly 18
> if it arrives soon), so I would like to raise to bar on changes to the
> above 4 bullets unless anyone objects?
> >
> > A number of new issues have also been raised; I'd encourage people to
> look through and add any thoughts they have:
> >
> > Note that "I think this issue should be closed without action / punted
> to v2" is valid feedback. On the other hand, if you feel that an issue has
> > We still aim to do interop based upon -17 in Tokyo. Beyond that, it's
> not clear whether this will have impact upon our revised milestones, but
> that should become clear soon.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > --

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:13:07 -0800

> bullets unless anyone objects?

Hmm...  I understand the impulse here but I think it's a bit premature. -17
includes a number of nontrivial changes in these areas that were added
without WG consensus (e.g., PR #2045), and there are also a number of
related open PRs (e.g., 2141, 2133) that were explicitly deferred past -17
with the understanding that we would discuss them later. It's fine that
these were added; that's what we pay the editors for. However, we should to
be able to discuss them either on-list or in Tokyo without a presumption
that there is consensus or that we can't make changes without a
super-compelling reason.

> changes until the WG has more experience.

I agree that these portions are less baked.

-Ekr

>> ..... since we'll need to discuss them and come to a conclusion before we

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:40:32 -0800

I agree with Ekr -- we still need to ratify all the changes in -17 in Tokyo
(or soon after). I do want to raise the bar on changes soon, but given that
we have a number of them "in flight" in -17 -- several of which are due to
issues raised after Bangkok - I'd like to finish handling those first.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:14 AM Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hmm...  I understand the impulse here but I think it's a bit premature.
> -17 includes a number of nontrivial changes in these areas that were added
>>> ...... since we'll need to discuss them and come to a conclusion before
>>> we can move forward. In Bangkok, we also talked about reviewing the
>>> "parked" issues; that will not occur until we've stabilised the drafts.
>>>

---

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:58:11 -0500

> I agree with Ekr -- we still need to ratify all the changes in -17 in Tokyo
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is unsettling.  Are you saing that what's in -17 may be rolled back?

  - Dmitri.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:01:06 -0800

> > I agree with Ekr -- we still need to ratify all the changes in -17 in

That's true of any Internet draft up through the point of RFC publication,
but certainly at this stage.

-Ekr

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:11:16 -0800

Dmitri, that's always been the process. We've always gathered as much input
as we could (including emails to the mailing list when an issue or PR does
not get enough discussion on github) and only merge a change if the PR
seems to have resolved all concerns. That still isn't wg consensus though,
and it's always possible that something comes up in Tokyo that we've not
considered so far.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:01 PM Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:58 PM Dmitri Tikhonov <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:17:09 -0500

OK.  What about the things we already hummed on?  First byte changes,
frame renumbering, transport parameters encoding: do those have to
be ratified again?

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:35:24 -0800

I believe those have consensus, so they don't need ratification.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:17 PM Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > >> > I agree with Ekr -- we still need to ratify all the changes in -17
> in
> > >> Tokyo
> > >>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >>

---

From: Christopher Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:58:34 -0800

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:41 PM Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> I agree with Ekr -- we still need to ratify all the changes in -17 in Tokyo (or soon after). I do want to raise the bar on changes soon, but given that we have a number of them "in flight" in -17 -- several of which are due to issues raised after Bangkok - I'd like to finish handling those first.

+1, as it seems strange to freeze features that have not been
thoroughly tested or agreed upon via WG consensus.

Best,
Chris

---

From: Ryan Hamilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:02:38 -0800

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:59 PM Christopher Wood <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> > I agree with Ekr -- we still need to ratify all the changes in -17 in
> Tokyo (or soon after). I do want to raise the bar on changes soon, but
> given that we have a number of them "in flight" in -17 -- several of which
> are due to issues raised after Bangkok - I'd like to finish handling those
> first.
>

True. But at the same time, there are LOTS of features at this point which
we have interop'd on, which have consensus and which we would really be
wise to raise the bary on.

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 06:43:53 +0000

The fact that something has been "hummed on" shows that there was quite 
a lot of support from people at the meeting. However, IETF process is to 
(in one way or another) confirm such decisions on the mailing list, to 
give people who haven't been at the meeting a chance.

Regards,   Martin.