Re: An Update about Chrome and IETF QUIC

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet,

As far as we know, we're interoperating really well with other
implementations.
For example, Cloudflare and Facebook have let us know that they're seeing
production levels of h3-29 traffic from Chrome and it's working.

David

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:03 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:40 PM David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> To follow up on my previous email, I just wanted to let everyone
>> know that we've now ramped up h3-29 to over 90% of Chrome
>> users. (We always keep a few percent of users running other
>> versions of QUIC or TCP to compare performance.)
>>
>>
> Good. So no interoperability issues?
> Maybe because both receiver and sender software from the same manufacturer?
>
> Behcet
>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:49 AM David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi QUIC WG,
>>>
>>> We would like to share an important announcement from Chrome:
>>>
>>> https://blog.chromium.org/2020/10/chrome-is-deploying-http3-and-ietf-quic.html
>>>
>>> In particular, we'd like to highlight two points of interest to the WG:
>>>
>>> 1) Chrome now supports IETF QUIC by default (h3-29).
>>>
>>> 2) Since the subsequent IETF drafts 30 and 31 do not have
>>> compatibility-breaking
>>> changes, we currently are not planning to change the over-the-wire
>>> identifier. What
>>> this means is that while we'll keep tracking changes in the IETF
>>> specification, we
>>> will be deploying them under the h3-29/0xff00001d name. We therefore
>>> recommend
>>> that servers keep support for h3-29 until the final RFCs are complete if
>>> they wish to
>>> interoperate with Chrome. However, if the IETF were to make
>>> compatibility-breaking
>>> changes in a future draft, Chrome will revisit this decision.
>>>
>>> Full details in the link above.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> David
>>>
>>