Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-invariants-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 06:30:12 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-invariants-12: No Objection

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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-invariants/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. I find the idea of having an
'invariant' document interesting.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

Should the use of UDP transport be also an invariant ?

-- Abstract --
I have hard time to reconciliate "...that are expected to remain unchanged..."
with the intended status of standards track... and later with the sentence "A
protocol that does not conform to the properties described in this document is
not QUIC" in section 5.4.

-- Section 1 --
Are we really sure that QUIC will always between TWO endpoints ? I.e., no
multicast at all ?

-- Section 3 --
I second Barry's point, the presence of "This document uses terms and
notational conventions from [QUIC-TRANSPORT]." renders QUIC-TRANSPORT as a
normative reference

-- Section 4 --
Isn't this section somehow redundant as the last paragraph of section 3 states
"This document uses ... notational conventions from [QUIC-TRANSPORT]".

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 04:09:23 +0000

Hi Éric,

Thanks for the review. I've captured your comments as issues on the QUIC WG
GItHub repository. Links to each are provided as in-line responses.

(I got your name correct on these one :-) )

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-invariants/

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4546

> not QUIC" in section 5.4.

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4547

> Are we really sure that QUIC will always between TWO endpoints ? I.e., no

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4548

> notational conventions from [QUIC-TRANSPORT]." renders QUIC-TRANSPORT as a

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4550

> "This document uses ... notational conventions from [QUIC-TRANSPORT]".
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4551

Cheers
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:50:02 +0000

Hi,

One comment from my perspective here. 

I think that would be a very bad move. QUIC is designed for usage over UDP, it
is not strictly dependent on it. In the last call there was some discussion to
go the other way of rather being explicit about the requirements QUIC have on
lower layers. That was considered a change that was to substantial to be done in
the late stages. 

However, QUIC from my perspective have very little dependency on lower layer(s)
as it provides datagram delimiter, a basic path identification (UDP+IP), and
service demultiplexing based on server side destination port(s). 

Thus, I don't see that UDP would be an invariant, and from one perspective IETF
is already designing a protocol in MASQUE that defines how QUIC over QUIC can be
done, where UDP is only emulated on part of the path. 

Cheers

Magnus

---

From: Ãric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:55:50 +0000

Magnus

Thank you for the explanation: it does make sense indeed and I learned something today.

Up to the point of wondering whether having this 'no UDP dependency' written somewhere as 'non-invariant'.

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 09:50
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-invariants-12: (with COMMENT)

    Hi,

    Cheers

    Magnus