- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:05:37 +0000
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > On 13/03/18 16:56, Ryan Hamilton wrote: > For informing the recipient of any additional versions of QUIC which the > sender supports. At present it could be referring to older Drafts which > are still supported (but not preferred), and after RFC publication to > different versions of the "hq" protocol (if any). 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.
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2018 08:06:18 UTC