For the record, this is now in https://github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts/pull/463
> On 23 Mar 2022, at 11:17, Brian Trammell (IETF) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > Cutting a bit to try to get this to concrete actions on the document; will > follow up on the other points in a subsequent message... > >> On 22 Mar 2022, at 17:25, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote: >> <snip> >> perhaps this wording will be if lesser concern to you: >> >> <<Identification of QUIC traffic by on-path actors such as network operators >> is not reliable. Therefore a heuristic along the lines of "any >> unrecognizable UDP traffic could be QUIC" is the least unappealing way for a >> network operator to characterize their network's UDP traffic in the QUIC >> era.>> > > I don’t think this fits editorially with the rest of the document. However, I > do see your point that “not designed to be distinguishable” is maybe not > strong enough. I also note that there’s something hiding in the rest of > Section 3.1 that we should maybe make more explicit: “this traffic is > definitely QUIC” is probabilistically doable, but there are better heuristics > on a per-application basis. > > How about something like: > > <<The QUIC wire image is not specifically designed to be distinguishable from > other UDP traffic by a passive observer in the network. While certain QUIC > applications may be heuristically identifiable on a per-application basis, > there is no general method for distinguishing QUIC traffic from > otherwise-unclassifiable UDP traffic on a given link. Any unrecognized UDP > traffic may therefore be QUIC traffic.>> > > ? > > Cheers, > > Brian >
