Greasing the QUIC Bit
draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-02
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-04-27
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2022-04-10
|
02 | (System) | Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-04-10
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2022-04-08
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
|
2022-04-08
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. This is the proper type for a simple extension to the use of the QUIC wire image. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: The "wire image" of QUIC packets is described in QUIC invariants (RFC 8999). Little about this image is visible to passive observers. One field, the so-called QUIC Bit, resides at the second-to-most significant bit of the first byte of every QUIC packet. RFC 9000 requires the QUIC Bit to be set to a value of 1, with the purpose being to allow QUIC traffic to be easily distinguisable from some other UDP-based traffic when they share a UDP port. This document defines a behavioural extension, negotiated using transport parameters, that permits endpoints to use any value for this bit. The intention of this extension is to exercise variation in the wire image (i.e, "Grease" the QUIC Bit) in order to support future QUIC changes before systems ossify (see RFC 9170 for more background). Working Group Summary: The document is succinct. During adoption and WGLC there was sufficient review and no major issues were raised or incidents occured. Document Quality: The document is succinct and describes how to vary one bit, using well-established mechanisms. There are several implementations of the grease bit extension and several interoperable deployments deployed on the Internet. No special review has been required. Personnel: Lucas Pardue is the document shepherd. Zahed Sarker is the AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed this document thoroughly and personally implemented the extension, which took 4 hours including testing. The scope of the extension is focused, and is straightforward to implement for any person familiar with QUIC. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No special review is required. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. There are no IPR disclosures for this document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are no IPR disclosures for this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The extension defined in this document has been implemented and deployed by a wide range of vendors. There is strong consensus on the document, with no dissent raised during the process. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). This document registers a new Transport Parameter. This is a permanent registration, greater than 0x3f, which operates uner the Specification Required policy. The registration conforms to the registration requirements of IANA. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
|
2022-04-08
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | Responsible AD changed to Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
|
2022-04-08
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2022-04-08
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2022-04-08
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2022-04-08
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. This is the proper type for a simple extension to the use of the QUIC wire image. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: The "wire image" of QUIC packets is described in QUIC invariants (RFC 8999). Little about this image is visible to passive observers. One field, the so-called QUIC Bit, resides at the second-to-most significant bit of the first byte of every QUIC packet. RFC 9000 requires the QUIC Bit to be set to a value of 1, with the purpose being to allow QUIC traffic to be easily distinguisable from some other UDP-based traffic when they share a UDP port. This document defines a behavioural extension, negotiated using transport parameters, that permits endpoints to use any value for this bit. The intention of this extension is to exercise variation in the wire image (i.e, "Grease" the QUIC Bit) in order to support future QUIC changes before systems ossify (see RFC 9170 for more background). Working Group Summary: The document is succinct. During adoption and WGLC there was sufficient review and no major issues were raised or incidents occured. Document Quality: The document is succinct and describes how to vary one bit, using well-established mechanisms. There are several implementations of the grease bit extension and several interoperable deployments deployed on the Internet. No special review has been required. Personnel: Lucas Pardue is the document shepherd. Zahed Sarker is the AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed this document thoroughly and personally implemented the extension, which took 4 hours including testing. The scope of the extension is focused, and is straightforward to implement for any person familiar with QUIC. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No special review is required. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. There are no IPR disclosures for this document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are no IPR disclosures for this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The extension defined in this document has been implemented and deployed by a wide range of vendors. There is strong consensus on the document, with no dissent raised during the process. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). This document registers a new Transport Parameter. This is a permanent registration, greater than 0x3f, which operates uner the Specification Required policy. The registration conforms to the registration requirements of IANA. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
|
2022-02-02
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | Notification list changed to lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2022-02-02
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | Document shepherd changed to Lucas Pardue |
|
2022-02-02
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
|
2022-02-02
|
02 | Lucas Pardue | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
|
2021-11-10
|
02 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-02.txt |
|
2021-11-10
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-11-10
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> |
|
2021-11-10
|
02 | Martin Thomson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-11-09
|
01 | Lucas Pardue | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
|
2021-11-09
|
01 | Lucas Pardue | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
|
2021-10-21
|
01 | Matt Joras | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2021-10-18
|
01 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-01.txt |
|
2021-10-18
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-10-18
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> |
|
2021-10-18
|
01 | Martin Thomson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-04-27
|
00 | Matt Joras | This document now replaces draft-thomson-quic-bit-grease instead of None |
|
2021-04-27
|
00 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-00.txt |
|
2021-04-27
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2021-04-27
|
00 | Martin Thomson | Set submitter to "Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: quic-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2021-04-27
|
00 | Martin Thomson | Uploaded new revision |