Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

SCUP #117

Closed
martinthomson opened this issue Jan 4, 2017 · 4 comments · Fixed by #120
Closed

SCUP #117

martinthomson opened this issue Jan 4, 2017 · 4 comments · Fixed by #120
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.

Comments

@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

martinthomson commented Jan 4, 2017 •
edited by mnot
Loading

What is SCUP and do we need it?
@martinthomson martinthomson added design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. -transport labels Jan 4, 2017
@martinthomson martinthomson mentioned this issue Jan 4, 2017
Merged
@mnot mnot changed the title What is SCUP and do we need it? SCUP Jan 20, 2017
@martinthomson martinthomson added the needs-discussion An issue that needs more discussion before we can resolve it. label Jan 20, 2017
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member Author

Proposal: remove it. This is currently Google proprietary.

@ianswett
Copy link
Contributor

We should remove it.

We already have a way to send new resumption info via the crypto layer, so I think that completely replaces the SCUP functionality.

@vasilvv
Copy link
Contributor

vasilvv commented Jan 23, 2017

I suggest that we remove SCUP and put any functionality it had into the NST messages (or any other post-handshake TLS messages we'd need to define).

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Jan 24, 2017

Discussed in Tokyo; kill it.

@mnot mnot added editor-ready and removed needs-discussion An issue that needs more discussion before we can resolve it. labels Jan 24, 2017
@martinthomson martinthomson mentioned this issue Jan 25, 2017
Closed
@mnot mnot removed the editor-ready label Mar 7, 2017
@mnot mnot added the has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list. label Apr 19, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Source address token quicwg/base-drafts
4 participants
@martinthomson @mnot @vasilvv @ianswett