Subject: [TLS] Fwd: Working Group Last Call: QUIC protocol drafts -30/-17

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:45:02 +0300

FYI, and apologies for the slightly delayed forward. Please comment on GitHub (per below) or email [email-masked].

Thanks,
Lars (for the QUIC WG chairs)

Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Working Group Last Call: QUIC protocol drafts -30/-17
> Date: September 17, 2020 at 10:51:54 GMT+3
> To: QUIC WG <[email-masked]>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> this email announces a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for the following QUIC documents:
> 
> * QUIC Transport
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-30
> 
> * QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-recovery-30
> 
> * Using TLS to Secure QUIC
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-tls-30
> 
> * Version-Independent Properties of QUIC
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-invariants-30
> 
> * HTTP/3
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-http-30
> 
> * QPACK Header Compression for HTTP/3
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-qpack-17
> 
> The WGLC will run for one week, ending on 24 September 2020.
> 
> Please review the documents above and open individual issues for each of your review comments in our repository at https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts. You may also send comments to [email-masked], but we'd appreciate individual GitHub issues if at all possible.
> 
> As a reminder, we have been operating under the Late-Stage Process; see https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#late-stage-process. In theory, this means that the contents of the drafts above already have consensus. However, the Chairs would like to actively reaffirm that consensus and start the process of wider review through a formal WGLC. Issues raised during WGLC will be handled in accordance with the Late-Stage Process defined in the Contribution Guidelines (see link above). Please note that design issues that revisit a topic where there's already declared consensus (see https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aclosed+label%3Ahas-consensus) need to provide compelling reasons to warrant reopening the discussion.
> 
> As part of this WGLC, we seek consensus on the following remaining open design issues and their proposed resolutions:
> 
> * #4099: Should invalid TP result in FRAME_ENCODING_ERROR?
>  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4099
>  Proposed resolution: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4100
> 
> * #4087: Conflicting error codes
>  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4087
>  Proposed resolution: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4088
> 
> * #4076: IP restrictions on Tokens makes them of limited use for non-anycast DNS load balancing
>  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4076
>  Proposed resolution: https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4089
>  (Note that PR #4089 was already merged by mistake; if the WGLC determines there
>  is no consensus, this will be rolled back.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Lars, Lucas and Mark
> QUIC WG Chairs