Also, very little has happened with quic-version-aliasing <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing/> since 109. If anyone reads the draft and has suggestions, or even wants to adopt, I'm happy to request an add to the agenda.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:41 AM Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote: > I will request some time for QUIC-LB. The draft is almost ready: there are > a couple of items that might need discussion at 110, or we might resolve > them beforehand if we determine that the proposed change is unworkable. > > Other than that, QUIC-LB is ready for WGLC modulo the WG's comfort with > the number of implementations, which is not high: > - 1 full LB implementation <https://github.com/martinduke/nginx-quic-lb>, > including an encoding/decoding library > <https://github.com/f5networks/quic-lb> that could be used by both > servers and LBs. > - zero full server or retry service implementations > - at least one PCID-only LB implementation > <https://github.com/alipay/quic-lb> with an obsolete shared-state retry > implementation > > I am going to try to put some effort into extending my LB implementation > this quarter to also include Retry Services, but would like at least some > of the many server implementations with migration/rebinding support out > there to take up my offer in the #quic-lb slack to interop with them. > > Matin > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:54 PM Matt Joras <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It is time to start thinking about the agenda for IETF 110. If you have >> topics you would like to discuss please start preparing materials and send >> agenda requests either as a PR against the agenda file >> <https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/blob/master/ietf110/agenda.md> >> (preferred) or by email to [email protected]. As always the chairs >> will work on prioritizing WG items and the as time permits portions. >> >> Thanks, >> Lucas and Lars and Matt >> >
