Re: Identifying our deliverables

Willy Tarreau <> Tue, 30 October 2018 05:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295E3129385 for <>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N0r5OykV9U9C for <>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1734E128CF3 for <>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w9U5LXVA029970; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 06:21:33 +0100
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 06:21:33 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <>
To: Mark Nottingham <>
Subject: Re: Identifying our deliverables
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:21:39 -0000

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:30:55AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> To address this, I'd like to suggest that -- after coordination with the HTTP
> WG -- we rename our the HTTP document to "HTTP/3", and using the final ALPN
> token "h3". Doing so clearly identifies it as another binding of HTTP
> semantics to the wire protocol -- just as HTTP/2 did -- so people understand
> its separation from QUIC.

FWIW I always thought that HTTP/3 should be its final naming -- just like SPDY
became HTTP/2 -- for various reasons, one of them being encouraging adoption
by the protocol being presented as the natural upgrade to the previous ones
and not a competitor that's been there for some time and suddenly comes as
an RFC.

H1 with 723x, then H2 with 754x have shown that it's not a problem to cover
multiple areas with a common name and that the protocol itself is in fact a
family of protocols and mechanisms. So QPACK will naturally fall under H3
just like HPACK naturally belongs to H2.

Just my two cents,