Hello all, As noted in previous mail, the draft minutes are available here[1]. A high level summary of the meeting, as well as next steps, follows.
About 25 people attended and David kicked us off with a short update as editor. Some of the attendees spoke briefly to the ideas that they had shared to the list since the last meeting. Watson presented the sketch of an alternative mechanism to achieve version negotiation to the existing draft[2]. This design was very interesting and provoked much discussion. There was, after a time, agreement that such a scheme would likely require a change to the QUIC invariants. While not strictly impossible there doesn't seem to be much motivation in this direction or for making a change of that magnitude at this stage. Much of the discussion focused on the notion of "compatible" versus "incompatible" version negotiation and whether or not we require just one, both, or neither. For definitions of these, please read sections 2 and 3 of the draft[2]. Regarding incompatible version negotiation, several people made arguments that incompatible version negotiation is not needed in practice today and we are unlikely to need it in the future. As the main complexity of the current draft is mostly from incompatible version negotiation, there is potentially a benefit from removing it as a requirement. On the other hand, many people felt strongly that incompatible version negotiation is definitely a requirement and they can foresee use cases for it. No one present strongly opposed a design which includes incompatible version negotiation. Similarly, some made the argument that compatible version negotiation is also not a requirement. Nominally the same functionality is achievable with a single QUIC version, transport parameters, and extensions. There were many people who believe there is still value in compatible version negotiation. No one present strongly opposed a design which includes compatible version negotiation. There was a general desire for clarity around when compatible versions should be utilized versus simply specifying extensions. To help get a sense of the room as the session was coming to an end, the chairs took a show of hands for version negotiation requirement options. The chairs observed emerging consensus for supporting both compatible and incompatible version negotiation. We also observed little interest in alternatives to the design in the current draft[2]. Therefore the proposal is to move ahead with the current draft and incorporate some design improvements. Please comment if you disagree with this proposal, the consensus call will last for one week until Thursday, April 29th. Thanks, QUIC Chairs Lars, Lucas, Matt [1] https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/blob/main/interim-21-04/minutes.md [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-03
