Subject: [QUIC] Stephen Farrell's Yes on charter-ietf-quic-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 06:40:09 -0700

Stephen Farrell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that this is useful and important work and should go ahead. 
I'm fine that my questions are answered as chartering proceeds,
i.e. please don't hold up external evaluation to answer these.

1) I think it'd be good to set a target of having QUIC be as close
as possible to TLS1.3 for application data protection. While it
may not be possible for them to be identical, the closer they
are the more we can leverage the analysis work for TLS1.3. If
that is a good goal, then maybe mentioning it in the 
charter would also be good.

2) I think it'd be good to have a deliverable that helps people
know when and how to use QUIC. I'd be particularly keen that
that covers when it is/is-not safe to use 0RTT data, as I think
that might be a pitfall for some protocols that use QUIC and
helping folks avoid that pitfall would be good. I'm not sure
if there'd be energy for that though, but if there were, I 
think such a document could be quite useful.