- From: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:10:11 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- CC: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Martin Thomson wrote: > Everything Amos said here. Remember that there are two versions in play > here: QUIC and HTTP over QUIC. And using "hq" camps on a value we intend > to use. If Google are indeed using it, then it might already be unrecoverable, > but that depends on how thoroughly it can be removed. > > If this use of "hq" continues - even in part - then we'll have to pick a different > value for HTTP over QUIC. > > The actual ALPN that Google QUIC uses is unlikely to matter in the long term, > but I would use hq-00, even if it has diverged from that since the -00 drafts > went out. Looking at my chrome://net-internals/#alt-svc, it presents a table of "accepted" QUIC adverts. Mine currently contains 64 entries, mostly google endpoints. A random sample of these shows most offer "hq". Not sure if that is a case of the horse bolting. Cheers Lucas ----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2018 10:10:49 UTC