- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 09:56:05 +1000
- To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 25 Jun 2020, at 7:33 am, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > My main concern is that if we come up with a new HTTP mechanism that would like to use datagrams but couldn't be solved by extending CONNECT-UDP, then we'd be in a bind because it might be impossible to use both CONNECT-UDP and this new mechanism over the same connection. Could you not embed it in CONNECT-UDP in such a way that it could be reused by other extensions? > Another solution could be to keep the drafts separate, and have draft-schinazi-quic-h3-datagram mention that any application that uses it MUST define associated HTTP semantics and how datagrams work across multiple HTTP hops. I'm not sure that MUST would have much force, but perhaps we could just position the document as 'this is a generic layer for attaching HTTP semantics to unreliable DATAGRAM delivery in HTTP/3' or similar. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2020 23:56:22 UTC