Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-quic-transport-26.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:25:34 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the QUIC WG of the IETF.

        Title           : QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport
        Authors         : Jana Iyengar
                          Martin Thomson
	Filename        : draft-ietf-quic-transport-26.txt
	Pages           : 174
	Date            : 2020-02-21

Abstract:
   This document defines the core of the QUIC transport protocol.
   Accompanying documents describe QUIC's loss detection and congestion
   control and the use of TLS for key negotiation.

Note to Readers

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group
   mailing list ([email-masked]), which is archived at
   <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic>.

   Working Group information can be found at <https://github.com/
   quicwg>; source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
   <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/labels/-transport>.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-transport/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-26
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-26

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-quic-transport-26

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Praveen Balasubramanian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 16:31:24 +0000

Draft-26 just dropped with minor changes. The planning discussion in IETF 106 was to stabilize and settle on a draft version for six months or so to get deployments and data. It'd be nice for implementers to get some idea of what that version is supposed to be. I was assuming it'd be draft-25 but that's clearly not the case. Are there any more changes that are a must have for wide deployment? I think only major security issues or deployment blockers would qualify.

-----Original Message-----
From: QUIC <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 1:26 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-ietf-quic-transport-26.txt

Abstract:

Note to Readers

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group
   mailing list ([email-masked]), which is archived at
   <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fsearch%2F%3Femail_list%3Dquic&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ca58c1730dcca46e21e8f08d7b6b03442%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637178740226089146&amp;sdata=d7Jz%2BvGDt2AZKkeVVKYvZDfAvFZaCcbH7Ky7mzpNfwY%3D&amp;reserved=0>.

   Working Group information can be found at <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ca58c1730dcca46e21e8f08d7b6b03442%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637178740226089146&amp;sdata=amI%2F8uVxcE0jIU2Nk9flyYuTlaYNNV5he6Z198F4kjw%3D&amp;reserved=0
   quicwg>; source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
   <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fquicwg%2Fbase-drafts%2Flabels%2F-transport&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ca58c1730dcca46e21e8f08d7b6b03442%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637178740226089146&amp;sdata=UZg%2F%2B3nJrsp%2FhTThyXYvw%2BqvvCjCwFzSCZ6GLe9LPBY%3D&amp;reserved=0>.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-quic-transport%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ca58c1730dcca46e21e8f08d7b6b03442%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637178740226089146&amp;sdata=5xNNzGIdD8qkkiYD8JfJd3zKKWNqRzGU0y3RqEeMiOQ%3D&amp;reserved=0

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-quic-transport-26&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ca58c1730dcca46e21e8f08d7b6b03442%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637178740226089146&amp;sdata=iTWuHZE0D1iltpGQL%2FJr35aBl89uwydaoqKz3%2FjG1Bo%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-quic-transport-26&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ca58c1730dcca46e21e8f08d7b6b03442%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637178740226089146&amp;sdata=nm7zY%2ByNFe%2FiNbcBYAXLZnym9VqHbQFdhWC0nWjDpQc%3D&amp;reserved=0

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-quic-transport-26&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ca58c1730dcca46e21e8f08d7b6b03442%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637178740226089146&amp;sdata=bYjSNhpKnSl3L8AYVHCOOyLYvvooSAeZokQcuJQjHh8%3D&amp;reserved=0

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:57:19 -0800

> Draft-26 just dropped with minor changes. The planning discussion in IETF 106 was to stabilize and settle on a draft version for six months or so to get deployments and data. It'd be nice for imple…

There are  open 41 PRs, 15 of which are marked "design" . In particular,
PR #3169 did not make it into the draft. That PR would change the format
of transport parameters. There was a rough consensus to adopt it in
Zurich (I was in the rough). Since we don't see it in draft-26, shall we
conclude that it was abandoned? Or is "stabilizing for 6 months" just
one of those things that people say but don't really mean?

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:07:41 -0800

> one of those things that people say but don't really mean?

On the same topic, there is a poll in the implementers' Slack chat.
Results so far are 12 votes to "abandon draft-26 and release draft-27
immediately", 0 against. There seem to be little appetite to rev the
implementations for minor changes, and a willingness to test the new
transport parameter format asap.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Praveen Balasubramanian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:08:25 +0000

It makes sense to include any TP format change and publish draft-27 immediately. But independent of that I'd like the WG to declare the intended stable draft version. Maybe at the IETF 107 meeting?

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 9:08 AM
To: Praveen Balasubramanian <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-ietf-quic-transport-26.txt

On 2/21/2020 8:57 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> There are  open 41 PRs, 15 of which are marked "design" . In 
> particular, PR #3169 did not make it into the draft. That PR would 
> change the format of transport parameters. There was a rough consensus 
> to adopt it in Zurich (I was in the rough). Since we don't see it in 
> draft-26, shall we conclude that it was abandoned? Or is "stabilizing 
> for 6 months" just one of those things that people say but don't really mean?

On the same topic, there is a poll in the implementers' Slack chat.
Results so far are 12 votes to "abandon draft-26 and release draft-27 immediately", 0 against. There seem to be little appetite to rev the implementations for minor changes, and a willingness to test the new transport parameter format asap.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Ian Swett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:02:17 -0500

As you saw, -27 was released because it did not include #3169.

The intent of Google and Chrome is to implement and ship -27 as widely
as possible.  There are a number of design issues out for consensus call,
but most should not have significant impact upon deployments and none are
wire format changes.

If the WG would like to declare -27 as a more stable deployment draft, that
sounds great to me, since we intend to operate as though it is unless
something drastic arises.

Ian

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:08 PM Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> It makes sense to include any TP format change and publish draft-27
> immediately. But independent of that I'd like the WG to declare the
> intended stable draft version. Maybe at the IETF 107 meeting?
>
> >> Draft-26 just dropped with minor changes. The planning discussion in
> IETF 106 was to stabilize and settle on a draft version for six months or
> so to get deployments and data. It'd be nice for implementers to get some
> idea of what that version is supposed to be. I was assuming it'd be
> draft-25 but that's clearly not the case. Are there any more changes that
> are a must have for wide deployment? I think only major security issues or
> deployment blockers would qualify.

---

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:25:25 -0500

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:02:17PM -0500, Ian Swett wrote:
> as possible.

On the server as well?

  - Dmitri.

---

From: Matt Joras <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:31:39 -0800

+1. Facebook has a similar intention. We currently have a variant of
draft-24 (with a different QUIC version number) widely deployed and have
been waiting on the (hopefully) last wire format change which is now in
-27. After that I am hoping we will be on that version for the foreseeable
future as a stable version.

Matt Joras

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 2:02 PM Ian Swett <ianswett=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> If the WG would like to declare -27 as a more stable deployment draft,
> that sounds great to me, since we intend to operate as though it is unless

---

From: Ian Swett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:32:52 -0500

That is the intent.  As always, widely enabling IETF QUIC draft 27 may be
delayed by any performance regressions.