Re: New Second Implementation Draft

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

I think the ID1 group has to reach consensus they are at the point of
diminishing returns, whenever that may be. If anyone wants to get ahead,
this is the stuff to tackle.

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Mike Bishop <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
>
>> Just so we’re on the same page – this set of “Second Implementation
>> Draft” targets is for Seattle?  Or some future date?
>>
>
> I had previously understood ID2 to be for Singapore. Given the somewhat
> rickety state of the implementations I saw in PRG, I think it might be
> better to get them solid in SEA rather than rickety but more full
> featured...
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>>
>> *From:* QUIC [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Mike Bishop
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 23, 2017 10:21 PM
>> *To:* Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>; Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]
>> >
>> *Cc:* Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>; IETF QUIC WG <[e-mail]>;
>> Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>; Martin Duke <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* RE: New Second Implementation Draft
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d follow precedent – http/1.1 is already defined, so why not http/0.9?
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d also like to mention that my wife is particularly fond of the paint
>> color “Rhino” for the associated bikeshed.  😉
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* QUIC [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Patrick McManus
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 21, 2017 3:53 AM
>> *To:* Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>; IETF QUIC WG <[e-mail]>;
>> Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>; Martin Duke <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* Re: New Second Implementation Draft
>>
>>
>>
>> its a good idea that needs a bikeshed. hq-nop would be my preference
>> (stay in the hq namespace)..
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> h09q-05? :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Do we need a permanent ALPN token for this?  It seems like a useful
>> facility to build into stacks that are transport-only.  Maybe "h09q".
>>
>>
>> On 21 July 2017 at 10:00, Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > I appreciate the flexibility but have difficulty in seeing how this
>> would
>> > flow through to interop testing, how do we measure success? One possible
>> > outcome is interop limited to self-test of “bespoke-simple-app” over
>> QUIC,
>> > is that good enough? My preference is to pick a minimal baseline (“echo
>> and
>> > amplify” or whatever else) and then additionals are a bonus that is up
>> to
>> > external coordination. I think this common baseline could also help
>> towards
>> > ongoing consideration for performance or benchmarking, over disparate
>> > implementations, as aspects of the protocol evolve or change.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The proposal to do HTTP 0.9 GET, discussed in Prague, addresses my
>> concerns.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Lucas
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>