Re: Identifying our deliverables

[Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 03:32:21AM +0000, Mike Bishop wrote:
> In theory, all Standards-track RFCs reflect IETF consensus, not just the
> consensus of a single working group, so I don't see HTTP as having "naming
> rights" per se.  But in general, I think the QUIC WG should have the
> consensus of the HTTP WG to call its output "HTTP/3."  And Mark's proposal
> reflects exactly that, with a heads-up to the HTTP list that we'll be
> discussing in Bangkok.  Along similar lines, I think we'd want to send the
> HTTP doc to both working groups for WGLC, either in parallel or in sequence.
> If both WGs have consensus on the documents, I don't see this as a barrier.

Also we must not dismiss the fact that there's a significant overlap between
the participants of the two WGs, which definitely is an indication of the
strong link between HTTP and QUIC in the way these protocols are designed.
For me it's exactly similar to how SPDY became HTTP/2, those of us who were
following spdy-dev saw a significant drop in activity on this WG once it was
adopted as the basis for H2. Here with QUIC the main justification to have
had a separate WG is that it covers additional areas such as the transport
whose design was out of the scope of the HTTP WG.

Willy