Hello Lars It seems to me that the response to Qn-2 is a too categorial. Also the question Qn-2 in LS is not well formulated either. What they really ask is about avoidance of avoid multiple encryption layers that occur in QUIC in QUIC tunneling. The motivation for their question is also mentioned in the ATSSS-draft. And maybe the question should be answered by MASQUE WG instead.
Best regards Hannu -----Original Message----- From: QUIC <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:12 AM To: QUIC WG <[email protected]> Subject: Draft response to Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 Requirements to IETF QUIC Working Group" Hi, FYI, below is a draft of our intended response to the Liaison Statement "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 Requirements to IETF QUIC Working Group" which we intend to send next week. Please feel free to send comments. Thanks, Lars, Lucas and Mark -- Thank you for the update on your progress and your questions. Please find our responses below. On Qn-1: The future of multipath support for QUIC is currently under active discussion in the IETF QUIC working group. While it was part of the original charter due to its inclusion in the pre-IETF "Google QUIC" protocol, several participants have argued during the last year that QUIC's connection migration support is sufficient for the majority of our use cases, and that full-blown support for multipath QUIC should consequently be abandoned as a WG deliverable. Other WG participants remain of the opinion that multipath support for QUIC is very important. Due to this active ongoing discussion, we do not have an estimate at this time whether WG drafts for multipath QUIC will be available in 1Q2021. On Qn-2: The QUIC WG is chartered to provide an encrypted transport protocol. An option to disable encryption will hence not be standardized. Kind regards, Mark Nottingham, Lucas Pardue and Lars Eggert, QUIC Working Group chairs
