Greasing the QUIC Bit
draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2022-08-19
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2022-07-27
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2022-07-27
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2022-07-14
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2022-07-14
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Suhas Nandakumar was marked no-response |
2022-07-14
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2022-07-13
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2022-07-13
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2022-07-13
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2022-07-13
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2022-07-13
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2022-07-13
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2022-07-13
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2022-07-13
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2022-07-13
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2022-07-13
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2022-07-13
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-07-13
|
04 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2022-07-13
|
04 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed |
2022-07-13
|
04 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot comment] Clearing my discuss, thank you for the resolution on the concerns raised and apologies on the slight delay |
2022-07-13
|
04 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Andrew Alston has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2022-07-01
|
04 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Clearing discuss based on proposed updates from Martin Thompson. (1) The purpose of having a fixed value is to allow QUIC to be … [Ballot comment] Clearing discuss based on proposed updates from Martin Thompson. (1) The purpose of having a fixed value is to allow QUIC to be efficiently distinguished from other protocols; This sentence seems inconsistent with draft-ietf-quic-manageability that states that this bit cannot be used reliably to indicate QUIC traffic. draft-ietf-quic-manageability states: 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. * "fixed bit": The second-most-significant bit of the first octet of most QUIC packets of the current version is set to 1, enabling endpoints to demultiplex with other UDP-encapsulated protocols. Even though this bit is fixed in the version 1 specification, endpoints might use an extension that varies the bit. Therefore, observers cannot reliably use it as an identifier for QUIC. Ultimately, for QUIC, it isn't really clear to me whether: (i) Intermediates nodes are not expected to be able to efficiently identify QUIC traffic. (ii) Intermediate nodes are expected to efficiently identify QUIC v1 traffic only. Assuming that the quic bit grease extension ends up with reasonable deployment then I think that we end up with (i). Is that correct and the intention? (2) This document already has a comment in the security section about the potential security impact of using this extension. I think that this document could benefit from an Operational Considerations section to highlight that using this extension is likely to impact the ability of intermediate devices to identify QUIC packets which may change how the network handles QUIC packets, either by giving them special treatment compared to other UDP traffic, or categorizing them and handling them the same as all other UDP traffic. Or perhaps the security section paragraph could be expanded to cover this point (although it isn't really security, but observed functionality). |
2022-07-01
|
04 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Wilton has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2022-06-30
|
04 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Thomson, Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed) |
2022-06-30
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2022-06-30
|
04 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for the work on this document, Hopefully this discuss will be relatively easy to resolve - and may result from a lack … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for the work on this document, Hopefully this discuss will be relatively easy to resolve - and may result from a lack of understanding - but - Endpoints that receive the grease_quic_bit transport parameter from a peer SHOULD set the QUIC Bit to an unpredictable value unless another extension assigns specific meaning to the value of the bit. Now, this is in reference to a bit - which can only be 0 or 1 - and the document further goes on to clarify certain situations where this bit should be set or unset - so I am not at all sure what this paragraph really means and hoping this can be clarified because I'm not sure how this will be interpreted on implementation. |
2022-06-30
|
04 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2022-06-30
|
04 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot discuss] Hi, Sorry for the late DISCUSS, and hopefully not tricky to resolve, but there are two points that I think it would be … [Ballot discuss] Hi, Sorry for the late DISCUSS, and hopefully not tricky to resolve, but there are two points that I think it would be helpful to clarify: (1) Ensuring the language is consistent with draft-ietf-quic-manageability. (2) Possibly whether a short Operational Considerations section could/should be added. Details in the comments. Regards, Rob |
2022-06-30
|
04 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] (1) The purpose of having a fixed value is to allow QUIC to be efficiently distinguished from other protocols; This sentence seems … [Ballot comment] (1) The purpose of having a fixed value is to allow QUIC to be efficiently distinguished from other protocols; This sentence seems inconsistent with draft-ietf-quic-manageability that states that this bit cannot be used reliably to indicate QUIC traffic. draft-ietf-quic-manageability states: 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. * "fixed bit": The second-most-significant bit of the first octet of most QUIC packets of the current version is set to 1, enabling endpoints to demultiplex with other UDP-encapsulated protocols. Even though this bit is fixed in the version 1 specification, endpoints might use an extension that varies the bit. Therefore, observers cannot reliably use it as an identifier for QUIC. Ultimately, for QUIC, it isn't really clear to me whether: (i) Intermediates nodes are not expected to be able to efficiently identify QUIC traffic. (ii) Intermediate nodes are expected to efficiently identify QUIC v1 traffic only. Assuming that the quic bit grease extension ends up with reasonable deployment then I think that we end up with (i). Is that correct and the intention? (2) This document already has a comment in the security section about the potential security impact of using this extension. I think that this document could benefit from an Operational Considerations section to highlight that using this extension is likely to impact the ability of intermediate devices to identify QUIC packets which may change how the network handles QUIC packets, either by giving them special treatment compared to other UDP traffic, or categorizing them and handling them the same as all other UDP traffic. Or perhaps the security section paragraph could be expanded to cover this point (although it isn't really security, but observed functionality). |
2022-06-30
|
04 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2022-06-29
|
04 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04} CC @ekline ## Nits ### S1 * "more of liability" -> "more of a liability" |
2022-06-29
|
04 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2022-06-29
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Apologies for not being able to do a more in-depth review, I'm currently traveling (an emergency trip to South Africa), and so am … [Ballot comment] Apologies for not being able to do a more in-depth review, I'm currently traveling (an emergency trip to South Africa), and so am relying on Scott Bradner's OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04-opsdir-telechat-bradner-2022-06-14/). I'd like to thank Scott and the authors for addressing Scott's comments in the -03 version and to Scott for updating it for -04. Like Scott I really think that this should use the Updates tag - yes, Updates is very poorly defined, and perhaps we should have a "See Also" / "Worth Reading" / "Closely Related" / "If you enjoyed this RFC, you may also enjoy these other ones" / "NOTICE TO IMPLEMENTERS: See RFCxxxx" tags -- but without them, we use Updates for this. I'll be on a plane during the telechat, but I urge the rest of the IESG to discuss / consider this... |
2022-06-29
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2022-06-29
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Completely trusting the internet directorate review by Wassim Haddad: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04-intdir-telechat-haddad-2022-06-26/ -éric |
2022-06-29
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2022-06-28
|
04 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to Julian Reschke for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/Uh8jVF7_xYDuk--gWV5BAyYBp9c/. Francesca |
2022-06-28
|
04 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini |
2022-06-28
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2022-06-28
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2022-06-28
|
04 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2022-06-27
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Russ Housley for the SECDIR review. |
2022-06-27
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2022-06-27
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2022-06-27
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2022-06-26
|
04 | Wassim Haddad | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Wassim Haddad. Sent review to list. |
2022-06-22
|
04 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2022-06-22
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2022-06-16
|
04 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2022-06-16
|
04 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2022-06-15
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2022-06-15
|
04 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2022-06-14
|
04 | Scott Bradner | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. Sent review to list. |
2022-06-14
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2022-06-14
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2022-06-12
|
04 | Russ Housley | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list. |
2022-06-12
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley |
2022-06-12
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley |
2022-06-10
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-06-30 |
2022-06-10
|
04 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot has been issued |
2022-06-10
|
04 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2022-06-10
|
04 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Created "Approve" ballot |
2022-06-10
|
04 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2022-06-10
|
04 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot writeup was changed |
2022-06-08
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2022-06-08
|
04 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04.txt |
2022-06-08
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-06-08
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Thomson |
2022-06-08
|
04 | Martin Thomson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-01
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2022-05-24
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2022-05-24
|
03 | Michelle Thangtamsatid | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the QUIC Transport Parameters registry on the QUIC registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic/ a new registration will be made as follows: Value: 0x2ab2 Parameter Name: grease_quic_bit Status: Permanent Specification: [ RFC-to-be ] Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Change Controller: IETF Contact: QUIC WG Notes: The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, Michelle Thangtamsatid IANA Services Specialist |
2022-05-22
|
03 | Julian Reschke | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Julian Reschke. Sent review to list. |
2022-05-20
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suhas Nandakumar |
2022-05-20
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suhas Nandakumar |
2022-05-19
|
03 | Scott Bradner | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. Sent review to list. |
2022-05-19
|
03 | Russ Housley | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list. |
2022-05-19
|
03 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke |
2022-05-19
|
03 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke |
2022-05-19
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley |
2022-05-19
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley |
2022-05-19
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2022-05-19
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2022-05-18
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2022-05-18
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-06-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease@ietf.org, lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com, quic-chairs@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-06-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease@ietf.org, lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com, quic-chairs@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Greasing the QUIC Bit) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the QUIC WG (quic) to consider the following document: - 'Greasing the QUIC Bit' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-06-01. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes a method for negotiating the ability to send an arbitrary value for the second-to-most significant bit in QUIC packets. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2022-05-18
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2022-05-18
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Last call was requested |
2022-05-18
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-05-18
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot writeup was generated |
2022-05-18
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2022-05-18
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Last call announcement was generated |
2022-05-18
|
03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-05-17
|
03 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-03.txt |
2022-05-17
|
03 | Martin Thomson | New version approved |
2022-05-17
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Thomson |
2022-05-17
|
03 | Martin Thomson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-05-17
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Last call announcement was generated |
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 |
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 |
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 ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: quic-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-04-27
|
00 | Martin Thomson | Uploaded new revision |