Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Disconnect version number from draft number (#3062)

Lucas Pardue <> Tue, 24 September 2019 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADA412011F for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.494
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qxXjrPGWQeZF for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53A371200F4 for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B91E6E098E for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:30:14 -0700
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3062/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Disconnect version number from draft number (#3062)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d8971a67c315_51e73f9c118cd95c413bd"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 01:30:18 -0000

That makes sense. For HTTP/3 we'd need to rephrase slightly (but that is not a huge problem because the section will be deleted in the final version anyway). In the interest of sanity, I might suggest that the HTTP/3 identifier simply reflects the wireprotocol version, and is explicitly tied to it. For example, if we were to freeze on 0xff000017, then the ALPN becomes `h3-ff000017` (give or take some prettifying). This would sidestep the discussion takign place on #3061 but with the possible cost of duplication.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: