Re: HTTP/QUIC Diverging from HTTP/2

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Summary of feedback on this so far:
>
>    - Ekr:  “Hoping we can converge, or at least maximize overlap”
>    - Stefan:  “any hope to [converge] needs to be abandoned”
>    - Ian:  “not excited… but it may… be the right thing to do”
>    - Patrick:  “separate protocols”
>    - Martin:  “keep the differences minimal” but “we're really building a
>    new protocol”
>    - Alcides:  if it’s different, make the differences clear
>
>
>
> If I’ve misconstrued anyone’s response, please speak now; and obviously,
> more opinions are welcome.  I would also appreciate reviews on the text of
> the PRs themselves.
>
>
>
> Unless there’s strong pushback in the next ~14 hours, I expect to
> incorporate both PRs tomorrow, prior to the -02 publication.  As Mark
> noted recently, that doesn’t claim full consensus has been reached, but
> there appears to be general support for considering these separate
> protocols which are closely related, rather than two variants of a single
> protocol.
>
>
​For the record, I agree with ekr. As much as possible, let's be similar to
HTTP/2. Of course, QUIC natively provides multiplexing but does not provide
in-order delivery. As a consequence, HTTP over QUIC will have differences.​
But where we have the opportunities to overlap, that sounds desirable.