Christian, do you believe that the outcome of the tsvwg discussion and the contents of draft-ietf-Ztsvwg-transport-encrypt will be timely enough to affect QUIC v1? If not, a discussion in QUIC WG would have a better chance of being timely for QUIC v1.
3GPP consists of Internet players who are mostly absent from QUIC WG, and their concerns should be taken seriously, since their networks carry a large portion of QUIC traffic. It would require everyone’s efforts to ensure that QUIC can grow from a single-digit percentage to the majority of Internet traffic with QUIC v1.
This topic, troubleshooting capabilities supported by QUIC compared to the ones available with TCP, is currently being debated in the transport area working group (tsvwg). The TSVWG draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/) is a general discussion of "The Impact of Transport Header Confidentiality on Network Operation and Evolution of the Internet".
It might be a good idea for the IETF to have that discussion at just one place.
-- Christian huitema
Please find enclosed a liaison statement from the 3GPP CT WG 4 (CT4).
This WG is actually studying the introduction of QUIC as transport protocol instead of HTTP/2 in the 5G core network.
The WG has some questions regarding the troubleshooting capabilities supported by QUIC compared to the ones available with TCP.
The LS is officially addressed to the QUIC WG. However, it was highlighted that httpbis WG could also be interested in. I will let you decide if only QUIC or both are relevant in the discussion.
3GPP TSG CT4#95 11th – 15th November 2019 Reno, US
3GPP TSG CT4#96 24th – 28th February 2020 Sophia Antipolis, FR
It would be good to receive an official feedback at the latest for the February meeting, where the study will be concluded (at least for this release).
Chair of 3GPP TSG CT
3GPP Liaison Person to IETF Chair of IETF Dime and Radext WGs
Core Network Senior Architect and Diameter expert