Hi, I think you summarizes the alternatives correctly.
On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 07:29 -0800, Martin Duke wrote: > To summarize, I think there are three options: > 1) Don't publish any RFCs until httpbis-semantics and httpbis-cache are in the > RFC Ed queue This will in fact drag documents not dependent on HTTP into this missref tangle. I note that the document that normatively depend on draft-ietf-quic-transport are these: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-transport/referencedby/ Only one appear to be in immediate risk of ending up in missref: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer/ (In IESG evaluation) Then I think we have a couple of WG documet that is still in their respective WGs. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-datagram/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-applicability/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc7983bis/ So it isn't a massive tangle. But, unless we think the HTTP semantics changes would spread back through HTTP/3 and QPAC docs why we need to hold the core QUIC protocol from publication. > 2) Publish QUIC ASAP without HTTP/3, and suggest that deployed endpoints run > QUICv1 with ALPN h3-29/32/34 or whatever I personally think this is the best compromise with what I have heard so far. > 3) Publish QUIC and HTTP/3 ASAP with a downref, allow ALPN h3 to deploy, and > hope nothing important changes in the httpbis docs. I very hesitant to do this. As just this week there was a PR into the QUIC HTTP doc to align with changes in the HTTP specs. These are editorial but to fix these when the RFC has been published it requires a new RFC. While editorial alignment to language is something we can live with in AUTH48. > > The second sounds cleanest to me, but I can certainly be persuaded of the > others. > > We appear to share views here. But I do like to hear additional input. And also maybe some planning for what we do version indication of the interim version if that should be h-34 or what? Cheers Magnus Westerlund
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
