Re: 8999?

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

Yup, we’re almost there, but hold on to the champagne bottles ....
something about eggs and counting chickens.

Though it is ok to get a bit excited :-)

And clearly, that we were completely coincidentally assigned 9000 is a sign
that the gods are putting their power behind this.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:41 PM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> These aren't formal; don't get too excited.  Hold on for at least one more
> week, I'd say.
>
> We're just in the process of porting the changes from the RFC editor into
> our repository.  We're doing that to verify that everything is good before
> we give the final approvals.
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021, at 16:17, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > And of course:
> >
> > RFC 9000 -- QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport
> >
> > RFC 9001 -- Using TLS to Secure QUIC
> >
> > RFC 9002 -- QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control
> >
> > 9000! That's very cool.
> >
> > -- Christian Huitema
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/4/2021 8:14 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > > Just looking at https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/rfc8999.html
> > >
> > > I see that:
> > >
> > > Stream:
> > >    Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
> > > RFC:
> > >    8999 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8999>
> > > Category:
> > >    Standards Track
> > > Published:
> > >    May 2021 ISSN:
> > >    2070-1721
> > > Author:
> > >    M. Thomson
> > >    Mozilla
> > >
> > > Congratulations!
> > >
> > > -- Christian Huitema
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>