Hi Marten,
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, 03:06 Marten Seemann, <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for the summary. Is there a recording of the meeting? Would have > love to attend if it had been at a more suitable time. > The meeting was held on WebEx and it was recorded. The secretariat kindly publish these for us to YouTube and that can take up to 10 working days [1]. I'll make a note to reply here once I see the video go live on YouTube. Cheers Lucas [1] - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/wNMi_HNzIb_VqIA8z2OCxMhKj5c/ > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:34 Matt Joras <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >>
