Re: New Second Implementation Draft

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>