Re: Add extension work to Interop matrix

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, 14:31 Dmitri Tikhonov, <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are now a few extensions that have been proposed and implemented.
> We should add them to the next Interop matrix.  I suggest using the
> following codes:
>
>     g   Datagram extension
>     r   HTTP priorities extension
>     q   Loss bits extension ('l' looks too much like '1')
>     1   One-way delay extension
>
> 'g' and 'r' can be added to the third row, while 'q' and '1' can be
> added to the second row (dropping the "use uppercase letters only"
> requirement).
>
>   - Dmitri.
>

Personally I disagree with adding extension-related letters to the matrix.
Some of these are in call for adoption, while others are far off that. I'd
rather keep the main matrix for features of the core documents.

Its great that people want to test these extensions out, but where its
difficult to see why these extensions should be included an not others.
We're at 19 "codes" right now, and not many implementations satisfy them
all. I'd like to find a solution that is more sustainable in the longer
term that can support extensions along with QUIC v2 or whatever comes next.
I don't know what that looks like but I'd take some inspiration from things
like the QUIC Network Simulator interop runner and Web Platform Tests (
https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental&label=master&aligned).

Cheers
Lucas