Re: Identifying our deliverables

[Ian Swett <[e-mail]>]

>From a completely practical perspective, I support this because I can't
tell you how many times I've had to explain the difference between the HTTP
over QUIC mapping and QUIC the transport.

And moving the HTTP over QUIC and QPACK documents to the HTTP working group
seems like the right thing to do.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:21 AM Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:30:55AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > To address this, I'd like to suggest that -- after coordination with the
> HTTP
> > WG -- we rename our the HTTP document to "HTTP/3", and using the final
> ALPN
> > token "h3". Doing so clearly identifies it as another binding of HTTP
> > semantics to the wire protocol -- just as HTTP/2 did -- so people
> understand
> > its separation from QUIC.
>
> FWIW I always thought that HTTP/3 should be its final naming -- just like
> SPDY
> became HTTP/2 -- for various reasons, one of them being encouraging
> adoption
> by the protocol being presented as the natural upgrade to the previous ones
> and not a competitor that's been there for some time and suddenly comes as
> an RFC.
>
> H1 with 723x, then H2 with 754x have shown that it's not a problem to cover
> multiple areas with a common name and that the protocol itself is in fact a
> family of protocols and mechanisms. So QPACK will naturally fall under H3
> just like HPACK naturally belongs to H2.
>
> Just my two cents,
> Willy
>
>