Subject: Agenda items for IETF 110

From: Matt Joras <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:54:25 -0800

Hi,

It is time to start thinking about the agenda for IETF 110. If you have
topics you would like to discuss please start preparing materials and send
agenda requests either as a PR against the agenda file
<https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/blob/master/ietf110/agenda.md>
(preferred) or by email to [email-masked]. As always the chairs will
work on prioritizing WG items and the as time permits portions.

Thanks,
Lucas and Lars and Matt

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:33:35 -0800

Hi Matt,

I'd like to discuss these two adopted extensions at 110:
draft-ietf-quic-datagram and draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation.

We're working on a significant update
to draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation that should land soon.

Let us know if this sounds good, and we'll discuss amongst draft authors
who should present.

David

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:54 PM Matt Joras <[email-masked]> wrote:

> (preferred) or by email to [email-masked]. As always the chairs
> will work on prioritizing WG items and the as time permits portions.
>
> Thanks,
> Lucas and Lars and Matt
>

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:10:29 +1100

I would be disappointed if the authors of those drafts did not want some time (even if that was just to ask "WGLC, please?").  These are important drafts.  Give David and co-authors all the time that they can use constructively.  

The same extends to the quic-lb, applicability, and management drafts.  The latter two are really coming together now and it would be good to finish them.

I would like to discuss adoption of draft-thomson-quic-bit-grease.  It's modestly-well implemented.  I also think that it's done.  (PR on the agenda incoming.)

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, at 10:33, David Schinazi wrote:
> We're working on a significant update to 
> draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation that should land soon.
> 
> Let us know if this sounds good, and we'll discuss amongst draft 
> authors who should present.
> 
> David
> 
> > It is time to start thinking about the agenda for IETF 110. If you have topics you would like to discuss please start preparing materials and send agenda requests either as a PR against the agenda file <https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/blob/master/ietf110/agenda.md> (preferred) or by email to [email-masked]. As always the chairs will work on prioritizing WG items and the as time permits portions.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Lucas and Lars and Matt

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:41:35 -0800

I will request some time for QUIC-LB. The draft is almost ready: there are
a couple of items that might need discussion at 110, or we might resolve
them beforehand if we determine that the proposed change is unworkable.

Other than that, QUIC-LB is ready for WGLC modulo the WG's comfort with the
number of implementations, which is not high:
- 1 full LB implementation <https://github.com/martinduke/nginx-quic-lb>,
including an encoding/decoding library
<https://github.com/f5networks/quic-lb> that could be used by both servers
and LBs.
- zero full server or retry service implementations
- at least one PCID-only LB implementation
<https://github.com/alipay/quic-lb> with an obsolete shared-state retry
implementation

I am going to try to put some effort into extending my LB implementation
this quarter to also include Retry Services, but would like at least some
of the many server implementations with migration/rebinding support out
there to take up my offer in the #quic-lb slack to interop with them.

Matin

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:15:56 -0800

Also, very little has happened with quic-version-aliasing
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing/> since
109. If anyone reads the draft and has suggestions, or even wants to adopt,
I'm happy to request an add to the agenda.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:41 AM Martin Duke <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Other than that, QUIC-LB is ready for WGLC modulo the WG's comfort with
> the number of implementations, which is not high:
> <https://github.com/f5networks/quic-lb> that could be used by both
> servers and LBs.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:22:39 -0600

Dear Chairs,

> will work on prioritizing WG items and the as time permits portions.

We talked about another possible QUIC interim meeting on multipath, when
proponents made enough progress to justify that. I don't know that we've
made enough progress to ask for schedule time at IETF 110, especially if
the chairs need time for anything left over from QUICv1 balloting and
rechartering, but I hope we can talk about multipath before IETF 111, if
progress justifies that.

(And multipath proponents are welcome to tell us about progress that hasn't
made it to the datatracker or mailing list yet!)

Best,

Spencer