Apologies for dropping off the thread, but @Martin Thomson <[email protected]> made better and/or similar arguments I would have, so +1 to everything he wrote, including the fact that I don't think making this change will be the end of the world. It's just not what I would prefer.
I assume implementation experience with the new approach will help clarify the pros and cons. Thanks, Ian On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 9:16 PM Kazuho Oku <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2026年4月1日(水) 7:55 Lucas Pardue <[email protected]>: > >> Hi folks, >> >> Thanks for the responses on the list and GitHub. >> >> To close the loop here, the chairs have determined there is consensus to >> proceed with the proposed outcomes. >> >> We note that the two-layer encoding topic raised the most discussion with >> varying opinion but on balance the rough consensus leans on the side of >> making this change. >> >> We are early in the document lifetime, decision choices made now can be >> revisited if the bar of supporting evidence is met. Cutting a new draft >> based on the first tranche of WG feedback allows folks to implement, >> interop and bring back data to the group to help us make informed choices. >> > > Thank you to all the WG members for the discussions, and to the chairs for > making the call. > > The issues and pull requests have been handled accordingly, and > draft-ietf-quic-qmux-01 has now been published. > > It is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-qmux/ > > We look forward to sharing implementation experience and interoperability > results. > > >> >> Cheers, >> Lucas & Matt >> QUIC WG Chairs >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026, at 08:18, Lucas Pardue wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> At the 125 session, Kazuho presented several QMux open issues with >> associated PRs. This email serves to summarize the outcome of the >> discussion and confirm the feeling in the room on the list. >> >> Since there has seemed to be strong emerging consensus on GitHub and in >> the room, the authors would like to promptly follow up on the outcomes. If >> you disagree with them, please let that be known ASAP and before >> 2026-03-26, ideally on the issue or PR itself. >> >> As noted in the session, we'd like to schedule a virtual interim for QMux >> before IETF 126, targetting an EMEA friendly timeslot. Look out for a >> follow up email on that topic, in the meantime you can express your >> interest directly to the chairs. >> >> >> - Two-layer encoding >> - Issues: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/issues/21 and >> https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/issues/24 >> - PR: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/pull/26 >> - Outcome: merge the PR to close the issues >> - Deadlock and flow control >> - Issue: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/issues/9 >> - PR: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/pull/27 >> - Outcome: merge the PR to close the issue >> - TLS Profile - negotiating application protocol when using TLS >> - Issues: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/issues/12 and >> https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/issues/25 >> - PR: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/pull/33 >> - Outcome: merge the PR to close the issue >> - TLS Profile - QMux transport params (TPs) in TLS handshake >> - Issue: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/issues/18 >> - PR: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/pull/28 >> - Outcome: merge the PR and close the issue (the PR adds improved >> text but we will keep TPs in QMux frames >> - Implicit acks & ping >> - Issue: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/issues/22 >> - PR: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/pull/23 >> - Outcome: merge the PR to close the issue >> - Multipath TCP >> - Issue: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/issues/5 >> - PR: https://github.com/quicwg/qmux/pull/29 >> - Outcome: do not merge the PR, close with no action >> >> Cheers, >> Lucas & Matt >> QUIC WG Chairs >> >> >> > > -- > Kazuho Oku >
